CO537-(1262-1649) — Page 250

2

cms

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Please note that this canvis sunnlied subiart to the National Archiuse' tarme and candilinne nail that costa ciam, ať ja men

2

000 35

35

1

cms

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

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

-7-

"And it is by no means to be admitted that a conquering power may compel private debtors to pay their debts to itself and that such payments extinguish the claims of the original creditor. It does indeed appear to be a principle of inter- national law that a conquering state, after the conquest has subsided into government, may exact payment from the state debtors of the conquered power, and that payment to the conqueror discharges the debt, so that when the former gov- ernment returns the debtor is not compellable to pay again. This is the doctrine in Phillimpre on International Law, Vol 3, par. 12, Ch. 4, to which we have been referred. But the principle has no applicability to debts not due to the conquered state. Neither Phillipore nor Synkershock, whom he cites, asserts that the conquering state succeeds to rights of a private creditor."

The

The defendant contends and argues, on the other hand, that the

Japanese occupation authorities could validly compel it to pay the debt

in question to the liquidator of enemy banks appointed by them and that

the payment thus made extinguished the obligation to the plaintiff. The

defendant cites in support of said proposition the rule of international

law that the measures validly adopted by the military forces of the

belligerent occupant must be respected, and the fact that it is the enemy

that adopted such measures detracts nothing from their validity.

defendant cited a passage from the decision in the case of Co Ki Chan v.

Tan Keh (supra, 41 of. Gaz. 779-792) and another passage from the work

of Feilchenfeld, entitled "International Economic Law of Belligerent

Occup..tion" (1942) sections 489, 492, pp. 144, 145, and 147. But said

citations give no support to the defendant because the measures taken by

the Japanese invaders with respect to the credit in question were not

"validly adopted. Their effects might be wiped out by the legitimate

government or the returning sovereignty becuase it was not within the

authority of the invader to adopt such measure, and conseygently these

did not have validity under the very laws and regulations that the

country of the invader has accepted and ratified. The defendant also

says, in support of its theory, that the legality or illegality of the

acts of the invader may be determined only by the laws of war. The

rules of the Hague Convention, of which we have been speaking, are pre-

cisely the very laws of war to the limitations of which the belligerent

peoppant should be subordinated and whereby the legality or illegality

of his acts should be determined,

Page 250Page 251

0