1
2
cms
Ref.:
CO 537/1374
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Ins
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet. Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
00037
37
cms
Ref.:
CO 537/1374
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVESTM
Ins
N
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
491
inhabitants, to control the operations of so important a bank as the
Bank of Ethiopia, which was the only bank of issue in the country, but
that would be investing the occupant with a degree of power which it
is difficult to reconcile with the rules of International Law to permit
him to liquidate the bank".
The defendant contends that the order to pay of the Japanese
military authorities is a consequence of the right of any belligerent
to take possession of all kinds of enemy property, wheresoever found, and
so the payment made by virtue of such order is valid. In the light of
the clear and express provisions of the regulations of the Hague Convention
concerning the inviolability of private property and its character of
being exempt from confiscation, and in the light of the decisions and
opinions of authorities on International Law which have been cited above,
the defendant's thesis lacka nerit. It might be that some belligerent
forces had violated the laws of war sequestering and appropriating to
themselves even the private property of the inhabitants of enemy pa
territory
that had fallen under their control, but there is no International Law,
treaty of peace, or decision of a tribunal that had given sanction or had
validated such confiscatory acts, especially where executed by a belli-
gerent who was defeated in war. The defendant has not cited any concrete
case in which ultra vires acts of the invader in respect of credits have
merited legal or judicial sanction. In the decisions cited by the
defendant, the courts recognize the confiscatory acts of their own
governments both in their own territory as in a foreign one, or the
confiscatory acts of other governments within their own territory,
cases are governed by principles and considerations entirely different.
For example, where International Law is not incorporated in the constitut-
ion of a country, the courts thereof recognize only the legislative and
executive acts of its government even if such acts might permit the con-
fiscation of private property in its territory or in a foreign country, in
disregard of International Law. Also, when a sovereign sequesters or
Such
confiscates property within his own territory, no question arises in the
courts of other sovereignties which a e not at war with the confiscating government, because sovereignty is considered supreme within its own