The League of Nations
The Hague Codification Conference
MosT of the European countries, together with the United States, Japan, Soviet Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Egypt, are attending the first Conference for the Codification of International Law which opened at The Hague yesterday (March 18th) under the appropriate presidency of a former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice of The Netherlands, M. Heemskirk. The jurists to whom was confided the task of preparing the ground for this important event have chosen for debate the three least controversial subjects they could think of—namely, Nationality, Territorial Waters, and the Responsibility of States for Damage caused in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. And the Conference is meeting under the eagle eye of a specially summoned Congress of women's organizations animated with the sole purpose of keeping the mere male up to his collar in one at any rate of the three subjects under discussion, namely, Nationality—in so far, that is, as concerns the status of women who have married foreigners.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND NATIONALITY.
The ladies are up against the problem that under the present law of Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia and a number of other States a woman automatically loses her nationality on marrying a foreigner without at the same time automatically acquiring the nationality of her husband. By the law of France, Belgium, Denmark, Austria and most other European countries she keeps her original nationality on marriage unless she automatically acquires the nationality of the husband. In Pinland, she remains Finnish in any case, if domiciled in Finland, but may acquire the husband's nationality if she lives abroad. Similarly, citizenship is automatically conferred on a foreign woman when she marries an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Dutchman, but not if she marries an American. Thus a woman married to a foreigner may have one or two nationalities, or even none at all. And in no case is she at liberty to choose the flag under which she will henceforward live. Further complications arise, if the marriage is dissolved, because sometimes the woman is allowed to resume her original nationality and sometimes not. If ever there was a clear case of injustice, this is undoubtedly the one.
Another nigger in the Nationality wood-pile is the question of children born on foreign soil. Children born in Great Britain, are regarded by English law as British subjects unless they make a declaration to the contrary when they come of age. But most countries, Great Britain included, regard the foreign-born children of their nationals as automatically acquiring the nationality of the parents. For at least twenty-one years therefore, and more if the victim neglects to make the requisite declaration, such children possess double nationality. Which may mean in practice that, if they unwarily let themselves be found on the territory of their unwanted motherland, they may fmd themselves hauled off to do a most inconvenient term of compulsory military service. This problem has already led to acute difficulties with regard to the Maltese and Italian residents in Tunis. Great Britain and France reached agreement on the question some years ago after referring their dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice ; but Italy and France are still at loggerheads over a similar issue and seem likely to remain so, at any rate for the present, for it is highly improbable that The Hague Conference will emulate the feat of Solomon in settling which of the two claimants is the real motherland (in law) of these much prized babes.
TERRITORIAL WATERS.
Unfortunately seeds of trouble are equally apparent on the question of Territorial Waters. For example, most States regard the limit of breadth of such waters as three nautical miles from low-water mark. But the United States, Estonia, Finland and various other countries claim certain rights up to twelve miles,. Egypt up to ten kilometres, while Italy demands full rights of sovereignty- up to six miles and " special rights " for another six. Great Britain, on the other
hand, " does not admit, and has always protested against " any claim for more extended jurisdiction than three miles.
Most countries, again, allow the right of pursuit on to the open sea of vessels which have been misbehaving themselves within the territorial waters of a foreign State provided that the pursuit is continuous. Rumania, however, regards this as illegal, and Sweden is doubtful whether the right can be upheld in the present state of international law. Then there is even a diversity of opinion as to the definition of an island. The United States and Estonia, for instance, say that any " naturally formed part of the earth's surface projecting above the level of the sea at low tide and surrounded by water at low tide " should be considered an island. But Great Britain considers that an island must be " in normal circumstances permanently above high-water mark " and must also be " capable of effective occupation and use." Holland agrees with the United States, while Belgium, which has a long- standing dispute with Holland arising out of this matter, maintains a discreet silence.
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES.
But if Nationality and Territorial Waters are somewhat thorny topics, the Responsibility of States towards foreigners positively bristles with (metaphorical) bayonets, e.g., the forebodings of Rumania of "dangerous interference with the domestic policy of States which would imperil the latteis sovereignty and would place foreigners in a much more favourable position than that enjoyed by nationals of the State itself." Japan, too, considers the question to be "not yet ripe for international codification." Incidentally, Soviet Russia, which has sent observations on the questions of Nationality and Territorial Waters, has cautiously abstained from committing itself on the subject of its obligations to foreigners and their property, while the United States recalls the fact that the main test for refusing recognition to the Soviet Government was that the latter had annulled its foreign loans. No doubt the Council of Foreign Bondholders, which has several bones to pick with certain of the Southern States of the U.S.A. in this matter of repudiated loans will note the State Department's remarks, as well as the even more interesting announcement from Washington that " the Federal Government has frequently paid indemnities for delinquencies of the States where the States have failed to furnish protection and redress."
THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE CONFERENCE.
An interesting feature of the preparatory work for the Conference is the evidence it affords of close collaboration between the various parts of the British Empire. Not that their answers to the numerous questions always agree. The Irish Free State in particular has in the main taken a line of its own. So has Canada. But the replies of South Africa and Australia are often identical with those of Great Britain. New Zealand generally, if not invariably, contents itself with the phrase " The New Zealand Government desire to associate themselves with the views expressed by His Majesty's Govern- ment in Great Britain." India with unfailing regularity says that " the reply submitted on behalf of His Majesty's Govern- ment in Great Britain may be taken as covering the position in British India."
All things considered, then, it would be rash to look for big results from this first attempt to codify international law. Some people, holding that codificatioh is a mistake, will be glad. The rest, however, need not be too cast down by the manifold difficulties, or even apparent failure if it should occur, for they may reasonably claim with the old French proverb that it is the first step which counts. The struggle for codifi- cation will go on, whatever happens during the first round at The Hague. And even the present Conference may after all not be entirely devoid of tangible results. It is true that agreement is unlikely on the Responsibility of States towards foreigners, and doubtful on the subject of Territorial Waters. But the Nationality discussions, though full of pitfalls in other respects, are at any rate hopeful in regard to the position of the wives of foreigners because woman, for once, has a
Previous page
