Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Research Articles

Jurisprudence of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Albania Claims

Albania ranks among the smallest and poorest countries in Europe, located on the Adriatic and Ionian Seas just north of Greece. It gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1912 (accounting for the fact that a majority of the population is Muslim) and subsisted as a monarchy for much of the interwar period. Albania was occupied by Italy (and then Nazi Germany) for all of the Second World War. Communist partisans expelled the Germans in 1944, without the assistance of Soviet forces, and thus began nearly a half-century of a totalitarian, isolationist rule by an extremely repressive Communist regime under the leadership of Enver Hoxha and Ramiz Alia. This regime was definitively overthrown in 1991. Since that time, Albania has been periodically wracked by civil and political unrest, leading to substantial violence in 1997 that was quelled only with the brief deployment of a UN multinational protection force.

El problema de las compensaciones : ¿Quién compensa a quién, por qué y cómo?

One problem that is probably the most complex and contentious in any process of normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States is that of "compensations." These problems must be resolved to avoid future lawsuits over property ownership, in order to minimize the uncertainty and economic paralysis that they could generate. This paper summarizes some of the elements related to the compensation problem, namely: The historical context; the claims of the United States against Cuba; the possible claims of Cuba to the United States; the legal and ethical dimensions; the alternative approaches to dealing with this problem and, finally, the Cuban-American claims (not considered by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission) and the claims of the Cubans.

Jurisprudence of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Iran Claims

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (Commission or FCSC) was granted jurisdiction to determine the validity and amounts of certain claims by U.S. nationals against Iran by the Iran Claims Act and the 1990 Settlement Agreement (lump sum settlement) between the United States and Iran. The Iran Claims Act, a 1985 statute enacted in anticipation of the lump sum agreement settling U.S. “small claims” against Iran, required the Commission to apply: (1)the terms of any settlement agreement [lump sum settlement];(2)the relevant provisions of the Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria of January 19, 1981, giving consideration to interpretations thereof by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal; and(3)applicable principles of international law, justice, and equity.

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

The Proposed Iran Claims Act of the United States

On September 14, 1982, the Department of State submitted proposed legislation (S. 2967) to Congress that would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to adjudicate “small” claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, i.e., those for less than $250,000, in the event of an agreement between the United States and Iran for an en bloc settlement to cover such claims. The Commission’s adjudications would be made in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, subject to the provisions of the relevant claims settlement agreements (the Claims Settlement Agreement of the Algiers Accords and any lump sum settlement agreement negotiated with Iran).

Fraenkel v. United States

State responsibility — Claims — Denial of judicial review of decisions of Foreign Claims Settlement Commission — Whether a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment — The law of United States

The United States—Hungarian Claims Agreement of 1973

Over a quarter century after most of them arose, an agreement settling claims of the United States against Hungary was signed at Washington on March 6, 1973. Under its terms Hungary will pay a lump sum of $18,900,000 in settlement of the claims of the United States and its nationals arising out of war damage, nationalization of property, and certain financial debts. Like the Rumanian and Bulgarian lump sum agreements of 1960 and 1963, upon which it is modeled, the Hungarian Agreement constitutes a unique development in international claims practice, for it follows the “preadjudication” of most of the claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC), a U.S. national claims commission acting pursuant to Title III of the International Claims Settlement Act. Although the claims against the three former Axis satellites now have been settled internationally, other preadjudicated claims under Titles III (Soviet Union), IV (Czechoslovakia), and V (Cuba and China) of the same act still remain outstanding. The present agreement, therefore, merits analysis not only in its own right, but also for what it reveals about the technique of preadjudication and the international claims settlement process generally.

The Jurisprudence of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Chinese Claims

Before the Peoples Republic of China [PRC] was officially proclaimed on September 21, 1949, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party had proclaimed that the acts and foreign agreements of the Republic of China which resulted in the exploitation of China by foreigners were “completely contrary to the will of the Chinese people” and would not be honored. Although certain actions by the Chinese Communists indicated as early as February, 1949 that property owned by the U.S. Government and its nationals would be treated unfavorably by the new regime, no concerted steps were taken by the PRC against U.S. property until the United States had already placed an “embargo” on American trade with China. Only after Chinese troops had entered Korea and the U.S. Government had blocked and frozen all Chinese assets within its jurisdiction did the PRC freeze all public and private property of the United States in the PRC and order that an inventory of it be made. The PRC “assumed control of all U.S. property in China under a decree issued on December 29, 1950. ”

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States

Long-Run Trends in Concession Contracts

The session convened at 8:15 p.m. in the Congressional Room of the Statler-Hilton Hotel, Dr. Edward D. Re, Chairman of the U. S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, presiding. Dr. Edward D. Re. Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. It is with great pleasure that I assume the role of Chairman of this evening's panel discussion. Our topic is Concession Agreements: Problems and Trends in Negotiation and Renegotiation. Not only are we fortunate to have three spendid speakers who are uniquely qualified to discuss this topic, but they have also agreed to answer questions upon the completion of their talks.

De Balogh Claim.

State responsibility — Claims — In general — Valuation of property Shares in nationalized corporations at time of nationalizationSources of information used in valuation.State responsibility — Claims — In general — Municipal claims commissions — Rules of evidence applied by — Relevance of lack of corroboration — United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.201State responsibility — Claims — Nationality of — Requirement of continuous national ownership since claim arose — Modification of rule by treaty — Peace Treaty with Hungary, 1947, Articles 26 and 27 — Claims under United States International Claims Settlement Act, 1949, s. 303 (1).

U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Decision in Koerber Case (Nationality of Claimants)

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The United States-Bulgarian Claims Agreement of 1963

After two and one-half years of negotiation, an agreement settling claims of the United States against Bulgaria was signed at Sofia on July 2, 1963. Under its terms Bulgaria will pay a lump sum of $3,543,398 in settlement of the claims of United States nationals arising out of war damage, nationalization of property and certain financial debts. Together with the Rumanian lump-sum settlement of 1960, which it closely parallels, the Bulgarian agreement constitutes a unique development in postwar international claims practice, for it follows rather than precedes a unilateral adjudication of the claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, a United States national claims commission acting pursuant to domestic claims legislation. Avoiding some of the problems of its predecessor, so ably considered in an article by a former Department of State attorney, the present agreement “merits analysis, not only for the benefit of private claimants involved, but also for a general understanding of technical, concrete experience in settling international disputes in a day when the chief talk revolves about grandiose schemes of the rule of law.”

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and the Adjudication of International Claims

In the ever expanding panorama of international law, few areas have been more intriguing to the scholar or of greater concern to the international lawyer than the international responsibility of states for injuries to aliens.

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Its Functions and Jurisdiction

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Its Functions and Jurisdiction

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and Judicial Review

After World War II many Eastern European governments began programs of nationalization in which they took virtually all the private property of foreigners. Under the conditions prevailing it was quite obvious that American nationals would not be able to obtain compensation for the properties taken through local remedies. It thus became necessary for the Department of State to commence negotiations with these various governments with the object of obtaining some compensation for the properties so taken. Very little headway was made in such negotiations and the only practical device available was the economic counter-measure of blocking the assets of those foreign governments which were located in the United States. Such blocked assets could be appropriated (“vested”) where the property involved could be classified as “enemy” property. However, the blocking was purely a delaying tactic where the foreign government was not an “enemy” during World War II.