About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

55 Am. J. Int'l L. 680 (1961)
Indonesian Nationalization Measures - An Intervention

handle is hein.journals/ajil55 and id is 690 raw text is: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1. The date on which the United States Senate gave its consent to the four 1958 Conventions on the Law of the Sea is May 26, 1960, rather than May 21 (see 54 A.J.I.L. at 772). 2. The number of states present at the 1960 Conference at one time or another totaled eighty-eight, although only eighty-seven were par- ticipating at the final voting, the Lebanese delegate not being able to be physically present to cast his vote. Two new African nations, Guinea and Cameroun (formerly called Cameroons, and so listed in the provisional summary records of the conference), had attained in- dependence too late for the 1958 Conference but attended in 1960 for the first time, as did both Ethiopia and Sudan. Afghanistan and Nepal were absent in 1960 while they had been present at the 1958 Conference (see 54 A.J.I.L. at 752). INDONESIAN NATIONALIZATION IEASURES-AN INTERVENTION It is perhaps rash to intervene in a matter which has been the subject of two recent articles by Dr. Martin Domke and Mr. Hans W. Baade, but there are a number of propositions in the article by Mr. Baade,1 to which this writer would like to join issue. I. It is said: Since public international law contains no customary rules as to the private international law of property transactions, the member states of the international community are substantially free in determining the scope, and indeed the contents, of both the rule and the exception. In fact, public international law does contain many customary rules about the private international law of property transactions, among which we may recall the following: (1) The rule pirata nown mutat dominium.2 The rule, making it clear that property taken by pirates cannot be a root of title, is firmly established in national and international law. (2) Secondly, it is quite clear that the whole of the maritime inter- national law of prize is concerned with the validity of seizures of assets and of cargoes. If the seizures are valid, title passes to the seizing state and its grantees. If the prize is not used, it is, of course, sold, and there is no question but that title passes. Indeed, many writers consider that a title given by a duly constituted Prize Court cannot be impugned abroad. (3) Again with regard to the law of war, there is ample authority for saying that if booty is captured, an internationally valid title is acquired thereto, as Professor Smith has shown.3 There is no question that inter- national law not only recognizes but protects the titles, even of individuals; 1Hans W. Baade, Indonesian Nationalization Measures before Foreign Courts- A Reply, 54 A.TJ.I,. 801 (1960); Martin Domke, Indonesian Nationalization Measures before Foreign Courts, 54 ibid. 305. 2See Wortley, Pirata Non Mutat Dominium, 24 British Year Book of Inter- national Law 258 (1947). sH. A. Smith, Booty of War, 23 ibid. 227 (1946). (Vol. 55

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most