Evening Republican, Volume 59, Number 91, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 May 1917 — Status of Foreign Investments [ARTICLE]

Status of Foreign Investments

By SAMUEL WANT

With government securities of the various countries of the world so widely distributed as they have been during the past years, one of the important questions brought to the front by the present war is the obligation of a conquering state to respect the obligations of a state brought to a condition of subjugation. What, for example, are the rights of American citizens as to the collection and enforcement of bonds ~of~ Roumairia, Belgium, Serbia and other territories now in the hands of the Germ'an authorities, in the event of the final annexation of the territory of any of such powers? ' While the practice of the nations and the opinions of writers on international law are not altogether uniform, it may be stated as a general principle of international law that in the event of the annexation of territory of other powers, whether by cession or subjugation, and in the absence of controlling stipulations, or unusual circumstances, the predominant power is under obligation to see to the satisfaction of the national obligations of the ceded territory.. There are, of course, exceptional circumstances, calling for a different rule. For example, the United States refused to assume in behalf of Cuba any portion of the so-called Cuban debt, for which the Cuban revenues were pledged, on the ground that it consisted of a mass of Spanish obligations and charges, and was in no sense created by Cuba as a province or department of Spain, or by the people of the island. Indeed, it- appeared that the debt in question had been mainly contracted for the purpose of supporting the Spanish army in Cuba. In a very recent English case it was decided by the English divisional court that the English government was not liable for the payment of an obligation of the South African Republic, the essence of which was a claim based upon the action of that republic in appropriating certain private property on behalf of the government during the war with England. The court held it to be a general exception to the principle above referred to, that there is no principle of international law by which a conquering state may be held liable to discharge the financial liabilities of a tortuous nature incurred by the country whose territory has been annexed by subjugation.