Free Essay

Treaty

In: Other Topics

Submitted By pranjul
Words 3268
Pages 14
IMMUNITIES FROM JURISDICTION

I. STATE IMMUNITIES

Forum State – the state where the court of justice is located.
More on the notion of forum: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/forum

A. Rationale for the doctrine of immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of the forum State is: - a state must not interfere with the public acts of foreign sovereign states, because sovereigns are equal and equals have no jurisdiction over one another - the judiciary may not interfere with the conduct of foreign policy by either national or foreign governmental authorities because of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The doctrine of State immunity emerged as one of the earliest principles of international law. See also The Parliament Belge, where a British court of appeals held that “because of the absolute independence of every sovereign state, each other state must decline to exercise by means of its courts any of its territorial jurisdiction over the person of any sovereign or ambassador of any other state, or over the public property of any state which is destined for public use, or over the property of any ambassador, though such sovereign, ambassador or property may be on its territory.”

B. Restrictive Doctrine of Immunity of Foreign States from Civil Jurisdiction
At the time the doctrine of State immunity, emerged it was absolute and deemed to reflect customary international law. Gradually, towards the late 19th century the doctrine became more restrictive.

The restrictive doctrine of State immunity in the U.S. – FSIA
By the 1940’s, US courts began considering situations where foreign sovereign immunity should be restricted, that is situations where US court could assert jurisdiction over a foreign State. Under this restrictive theory, the Department of State (which was consulted with respect to State immunity) was to distinguish between cases involving public acts of foreign governments and situations involving commercial acts (which could have easily been carried by private parties). Because the Department of State was put in a very difficult situation, Congress eventually passed the FSIA, which provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the U.S. courts. As a general matter, the FSIA recognizes immunity from jurisdiction for all foreign sovereigns, but FSIA also sets for the a series of restrictions to that immunity: • exception based on waiver – a foreign state will be subject to jurisdiction if it has either implicitly (e.g. by making US law applicable to the contract, or by failing to raise the defense of immunity) or explicitly (e.g. by treaty, or by the statement of an authorized official after the dispute arises) • commercial activity exception (test: was the government acting as a regulator of the market or as a player within the market). The foreign state will be immune only in the former case • tort exception – a foreign state or its agents are not immune (that is, a US court can assert jurisdiction over them) from tort actions involving money damages where the tort occurred in the U.S., including actions for personal injuries (such as car accidents caused by foreign embassy personnel), death etc • terrorist state exception - permits civil suits in the US for monetary damages against foreign states that cause personal injury or death. The claimant or victim must be a US national when the terrorist act occurred and the State sued must be one that is designated by the Secretary of State as a sponsor of terrorism (as of 2006 – Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Sudan). See Flatow v. Iran • counterclaim exception: if a foreign state brings an action in US court, the foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of US courts for any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of its own claim, to the extent the counterclaim does not seek relief exceeding the amount sought by the foreign state. • There are a few other exceptions.

U.K - I Congresso del Partido, 1981 finally established in English law the restrictive theory of immunity, whereby the trading or commercial activities of states are not protected. Lord Wilberforce justified the restrictive doctrine as based on the willingness of States to enter into commercial, private transactions. If they choose to do so, justice requires that the individuals dealing with such states be able to sue them; moreover, suing them does not infringe on their sovereignty as they were engaged in private transactions (not governmental acts or acts pertaining to that State’s sovereign functions).

At present, almost all States adhere to the doctrine of restrictive immunity (except for China and some Latin countries). According the restrictive doctrine of State immunity, private and commercial transactions of States are subject to foreign jurisdiction. Acts performed by the foreign state in the exercise of its sovereign functions are immune.

Sovereign Acts?
What if a State purchases shoes for its army? Is it acting as a sovereign or as a private person? US case – as a sovereign, Italian case – it’s a commercial transaction excluded from immunity. Cassese p. 101

What about the cutting of the cable of a cable car by a US military craft while performing military training in Italy which resulted in civilian deaths? – inherently sovereign act, so immunity. P. 101

Acts performed by the foreign State in a private capacity
Two different criteria have been suggested:
Nature of the foreign act v. function of the foreign act – but that can lead to confusing results (e.g. shoe purchase for army). This difficulty is the reason many States passed national legislation to regulate the matter (see FSIA above; similar Act was passed in the UK; see also ILC Draft p. 101).

C. Immunity of Foreign States from Jurisdiction in Employment Matters
The principle of sovereignty also requires that a State must not interfere with or meddle with another State’s internal organization. See Blaskic. In employment matters too, courts have traditionally distinguished between acts performed in a private capacity and acts performed by the foreign State in his capacity as a sovereign. See Fogarty v. UK, ECHR regarding the firing of an Irish employee by the US Embassy in London based on sex discrimination, which in the UK is prohibited by law. The US did not invoke immunity and defended the claim. The employee received compensation. Later, she also applied for a position with the American Embassy but was not hired. She claimed that the refusal to re-employ her was due to the previous sex discrimination law suit. US claimed immunity. She brought a suit before the ECHR, which dismissed her claim that the UK was in violation of the Convention of Human Rights guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing by a tribunal. ECHR held that this right of access is not absolute and the Convention is not violated as long as the limitations to it (such as those that resulted from the British law on foreign immunities) do not restrict the access to court to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. The court stated that it was not aware of any trend in international law towards relaxation of State immunity rules in the case of recruitment to foreign missions, which missions, by their very nature involve sensitive and confidential issues, related to the diplomatic and organization policy of the foreign state.

A problem that results from immunity in employment disputes is that individuals may be deprived of judicial remedies to enforce their fundamental right to have access to judicial remedies. As a result, some courts have resorted to a distinction between employment contracts for ordinary affairs (usually manual labor – e.g. hiring a driver, an electrician) and contracts which relate to the exercise of a public function (political position), with immunity attaching only to the latter. Other courts have distinguished between activities that are ancillary to the public functions (e.g. plumber, driver) and activities that are directly related to the performance of public functions (e.g. persons fulfilling security duties), with immunity attaching only to the latter.

Conclusion: There is still uncertainty as to the legal regime that is applicable with respect to State immunity in employment matters, but there is a tendency to restrict foreign immunity due to assure respect for individuals’ rights.

D. State Immunities and Jus Cogens
Can violation of a peremptory rule preclude the applicability of State immunity?
See Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, US Court of Appeals – The plaintiff was tortured by the Nazi, sent to concentration camps and subjected to forced labor. He brought a claim in the US against Germany under the FSIA. The court dismissed the claim on the ground that Germany was entitled to foreign immunity. Judge Wald dissented, arguing that, under international law a State waives its right to immunity when it breaches jus cogens. See also, Al-Asdani v. UK, ECHR – U.K.’s High Court held that Kuwait benefited from State immunity and Al-Asdani’s case did not fall under any of the exceptions of the UK Immunities Act. The case was brought before the ECHR, which dismissed Al-Asdani’s claim on the grounds that, although the prohibition of torture is part of jus cogens, international law does not support the proposition that a State is not entitled to immunity in respect of civil claims for damage. The Court noted that the case was different from Furundzija and Pinochet’s cases which involved the criminal liability of an individual for alleged acts of torture, and not the immunity of a State for acts of torture committed on the territory of that State.

There is however a trend towards restricting State immunity for acts violating jus cogens. See Ferrini v. Republica Federale di Germania, Italian Court of Cassation – Held that while military operations are an expression of State sovereignty, and thus covered by State immunity, a State may no longer plead immunity where such operations amount to international crimes violating peremptory norms of international law. Unfortunately, the Court limited its holding (decision) by stating that it applies only if the act had been performed in the forum State (i.e. Italy).

E. Immunity of Foreign States from Execution
Traditionally, the law on State immunity from jurisdiction has been similiarly applied to State’s immunity from execution. With respect to the latter, courts have also distinguished between acts jure gestionis and acts jure imprii, with immunity attaching only to the latter. Execution measures (enforcement measures) can be taken against the property or assets of foreign States, but only if they are destined for a private function (i.e. intended for commercial purposes). Generally, courts have allowed execution measures against bank accounts of foreign States, while there has been some reluctance to seize accounts opened by foreign diplomatic missions (which were viewed as destined to accomplish public functions). However, State property that is intended for the discharge of public functions may not be seized.

II. IMMUNITIES OF ORGANS OF FOREIGN STATES

A. Principle of Functional Immunity
A State may not assert jurisdiction over acts by a foreign State official which were performed in the exercise of his official functions. These acts shall be attributed to the State to which the official belongs and that State alone can be held accountable. The rationale: to protect the internal organization of each sovereign State. See Bigi case – the Foreign Minister of San Marino was held to be a representative of a State and, as such, enjoyed immunity from prosecution even after leaving office.
From the principle of functional immunity, it follows that, the acts foreign State officials perform in their official capacity are imputed to the State on behalf of which they acted. If the act is in breach of international law, the State will incur international responsibility.

B. Exceptions to Immunities of State Organs - an official act of foreign representative that is in breach of international law, is performed on the territory of the forum State, involves the commission of a serious criminal offence under the local legislation gives rise to international responsibility of the State to which he belongs and may also trigger personal liability of the agent - an official act by a foreign State agent is not protected by functional immunity if it amounts to an international crime. In such cases, the State and the agent will both be responsible, although there is an emerging trend towards individual responsibility of the agent only.

Note: The act of State officials to immunity is a right belonging to the State, not the State official. Therefore, if the State waives its right, the agent may be tried (brought to trial) and punished by the foreign State.

III. IMMUNITIES AFFORDED TO PERSONS: DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR IMMUNITIES

A. Diplomatic Immunities
Diplomatic immunities based on the need to promote friendly relations among States, by allowing their representatives to perform their functions without interference by the forum state through judicial proceedings.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) of 1961 codifies customary international law governing the treatment of diplomats and diplomatic property. It has been ratified by more than 180 States.

Personal Immunities
In addition to immunity for acts or omissions done in the exercise or related to their official functions (functional immunities), once a government (the sending State) has sent someone as a diplomat to another government (the receiving State), that person is also immune with respect to:
- criminal acts
- arrest or detention
- most civil processes in the receiving State (the exceptions relate to situations where the diplomats deliberately engage in private activities or transactions not linked to their diplomatic functions)
- his private residence, paper, correspondence, and property. The physical premises of the diplomatic mission are inviolable but, contrary to popular belief, they are not sovereign territory of the sending State. See Third Avenue Assoc v. Zaire (US) - A diplomatic mission that had fallen into arrears on its rent (had not paid rent for several months or years) was sued by the landlord (owner of the building) who sought to evict the mission. The court denied the landlord’s right to obtain possession of the premises upon non-payment of rent, saying that that right of the tenant may not override the well-established rule of international law granting diplomats protection of diplomatic property. See also, US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran, ICJ 1980 – Iran clearly breached its international obligations. The court emphasized the fundamental importance of the rules on diplomatic immunity, which cannot be altered by alleged extenuating circumstance, such as Iran’s claim of past US wrongdoing.
- dues and taxes

These immunities extend to his family members.

Exceptions to Diplomatic Immunities: - Diplomats are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the sending State (VCDR, Art. 31 (4)). - The receiving State may assert jurisdiction over the diplomat if the sending State expressly waives the immunity of its diplomatic personnel. See the Makharadze case, involving involuntary homicide (killing) by a Georgian diplomat in the US as a result of car speeding and resulting in the death of a 16-year old and the injury of 4 other people. Georgia waived immunity and the diplomat was sentenced to prison in the US and was later transferred to serve his sentence in Georgia. - If the diplomatic agent has the nationality of the receiving State or permanent residence there, he enjoys only immunity from jurisdiction for official acts performed in the exercise of his functions (VCDR Art. 38.1) – the rationale is that otherwise the diplomat would be exempt from any jurisdiction and enjoy total unaccountability. As a result, the diplomat will be liable for taxes and dues and will be accountable for criminal acts in the receiving State.

B. Consular Immunities
Customary international law governing the treatment of consular officers and consulates is codified by the VCCR of 1963. Consular agents are not diplomatic envoys in that they are not in charge of relations between two States. Their role is to protect the commercial and other interests of the sending state and in particular provide assistance to nationals of that State. They are only entitled to functional immunities, i.e. immunity from civil and criminal acts done in the official exercise of their consular functions. In addition, they are not liable to arrest or detention, except in the case of grave crimes; consular premises, archives and documents are not subject to search and seizure; consular agents are exempt from taxation and from customs duties and inspection.

C. Head of State Immunity
Heads of State, prime ministers and foreign ministers enjoy: - functional immunities - immunity with respect to the premises from which they perform their official actions or live - immunity for their private acts
However, these immunities are granted only when they are on official visit. When on a private visit, States generally grant them same immunities but out of comity, not because of a legal duty to do so.

In the U.S. because the FSIA does not control head of state immunity determinations, the courts look to the Executive Branch for guidance. See Lafontat v. Aristide, which resulted in the dismissal of a civil case against the President of Haiti due to the US State Department’s suggestion of applying head of state immunity to the defendant’s status.

Tachiona v. Mugabe, 2001 – Zimbabwe nationals sued Zimbabwean President Mugabe and his foreign minister for compensatory and punitive damages in US court claiming they and their relatives were subject to murder, torture and other acts of violence. The NY District Court followed the suggestion by the US Department of State (which cited extensive precedent for head of state immunity) and dismissed the action against the two defendants.

Congo v. Belgium, ICJ 2002 - Congo sued Belgium seeking the annulment of a Belgian judge’s arrest warrant issued for grave violations of international humanitarian law against Congo’s then-foreign Minister. The ICJ found that while in office, the Minister enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction, even when the Minister is suspected of having committed war crimes. The warrant constituted a violation of Belgium’s legal obligation towards Congo with respect to such immunity.

IV. Duration of Privileges and Immunities - Functional Immunity does not cease with the cessation of functions - Personal privileges and immunities terminate with the cessation of the mission, except that they extend for a reasonable time after the cessation of diplomatic functions in order to allow diplomats to make arrangements and leave the country.

V. Personal Immunities and International Crimes
State officials benefit from immunity for international crimes, but only for the time they remain in office. Thereafter, they may be prosecuted for crimes perpetrated while in office or before.

VI. Limitations upon State’s Treatment of Foreigners and Individuals - Customary and treaty provisions guaranteeing foreigners’ rights are a major limitation upon State sovereignty. Debate as to the standard to be applied to foreigners: nationals’ standard v. minimum standard of civilization regardless of how the host country treats its nationals. The latter prevailed. - Foreigners have the right to not be discriminated against, to respect for their life and property, may not be expelled collectively, and are entitled to judicial remedies. - If no judicial remedy by local authorities – foreigners can rely upon diplomatic protection of their own State, although diplomatic protection is not a right (their State may decline to exercise diplomatic protection) and depends on policy consideration from their State, which are not justiciable (a Court will not scrutinize them), but need be legitimate (rest on a rational basis). - Many customary international rules now protect individuals not as foreigners, but as individuals. International rules on human rights, impose limitations on States even with regard to their own nationals, but like rules on foreigners, they also require the exhaustion of local remedies before an international claim can be brought.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

The Versailles Treaty

...The Versailles Treaty The Treaty of Versailles was the PEACE settlement signed after World War I ended in 1918 and in the shadow of the Russian Revolution and other events in Russia. The treaty was signed at the vast Versailles Palace near Paris between Germany and the Allies. The three most important politicians were there David Lloyd George of Britain Georges Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson of the United States. The Versailles Palace was considered the most appropriate venue because of its size many hundreds of people were involved in the process and the final signing ceremony in the Hall of Mirrors could accommodate hundreds of dignitaries. The Paris Peace Conference opened on 12th January 1919, meetings were held at various locations in and around Paris until 20th January, 1920. Leaders of 32 states representing about 75% of the world's population, attended. Negotiations were dominated by the five major powers responsible for defeating what was called the Central Power the United States, Britain, France Italy and Japan. Eventually five treaties emerged from the conference that dealt with the defeated powers. The five treaties were named after the Paris suburbs of Versailles of Germany, St Germain of Austria, Trianon of Hungary, Neuilly of Bulgaria and Serves of Turkey. The main terms of the Versailles Treaty were: (1) the surrender of all German colonies as League of Nations mandates. (2) the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France. (3) cession of Eupen-Malmedy to...

Words: 950 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Treaty of Versailles

...------------------------------------------------- Top of Form Bottom of Form The Treaty of Versailles was the agreement that was signed at the end of World War I. It placed blame on the war squarely on the shoulders of Germany and imposed great punishments that harmed the country and its people. The Germans immediately protested the potential damage outlined in the treaty. According to the German complaints, the Treaty had the effect of making Germany a debtor slave to the other powers of Europe. After reading the article, Comments of the German Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference on the Conditions of Peace, this argument is clearly focused with the following points, that Germany will be administered like a bankruptcy case by the victorious nations of France and England. Germany must pay reparations, in the amount of $35 billion, which is illogical. The control of Germany's rivers and construction of infrastructure by outside powers will hamper Germany's economic development. The property of German citizens abroad will be annexed and they will not be permitted to conduct trade with the civilized world. While outlining the economic difficulty that Germany will endure under the treaty, the Germans point to how Wilson's vision for peace was compromised. In the article, the following points were made about that contradiction. Wilson did not place blame on a single country for starting the war, but rather the institutions and alliances that existed prior. The treaty places blame on Germany. Wilson's vision for...

Words: 633 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Treaty of Versilles

...because it was a way to get goods to other countries easier and they could come deliver goods to the US. Open door policy- the open door policy made it so that trade was fair to all countries and there weren’t any countries that couldn’t trade or be traded with. This relates to foreign policy because it is a way of countries being friendly with other countries and making it so that all countries are equal in terms of trade. The treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, it was the peace settlement between Germany and the Allied Powers that officially ended World War I. the most famous people that wrote it were Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George. Woodrow Wilson Wilson was the president during this period. These three guys were often called the big three. The treaty was written and signed in Versailles. On May 7, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was handed over to Germany with the instructions that they had only three weeks to accept the Treaty. After a lot of negotiation between the Allies, the terms of the treaty were decided on, and covered areas of territory, the military and the economy, and Germany also had to admit responsibility for causing the First World...

Words: 533 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Treaty of Versailles

...To end World War 1 the Treaty of Versailles was signed (International Conciliation, 1919). Through the Treaty Germany was blamed for the war and was punished. This caused economical issues for Germany to face, and a loss of self-determination (International Conciliation, 1919). Some people believed Germany was not punished enough for the war and Germany believed they should have been treated differently. Germany was blamed for all of the events that took place during World War 1 and the German economy suffered from this (International Conciliation, 1919). The Treaty damaged Germany’s economy by not returning their confiscated goods back to them and also by using them to pay for the damages of the war (International Conciliation, 1919). Foreign authorities were also allowed to build canals and railroads on German territory as they pleased (International Conciliation, 1919). The Treaty called for Germany to surrender territory, such as Alsace-Lorraine (International Conciliation, 1919). This loss of territory caused Germany to lose around 2.5 million ethnic Germans, according to the authors (International Conciliation, 1919). These provisions critically harmed Germany’s economy because they were forced to pay for damage that they could not afford, and the terms of this agreement were completely decided by the countries Germany fought against in the war, while Germany had no control over the terms of paying reparations for the war (International Conciliation, 1919). They had some...

Words: 737 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

The Treaty of Lisbon

...The Treaty of Lisbon: An Analysis After more than 50 years of European integration, the Treaty of Lisbon is a new step forward but also a deeply contested concept. This essay begins with an overview of how the new Treaty came about and why it was seen as necessary, followed by an analysis of its new developments structured into four parts. Firstly, it considers how the LT is supposed to increase the EU’s effectiveness through more qualified majority voting, the co-decision procedure and through institutional changes including the creation of new leadingpositions.Secondly,democraticvaluesaremoreclearlydefinedandrolesof theEuropeanand national parliaments are reinforced. Thirdly, the LT has attempted to improve citizen’s rights, for example by the new citizens’ initiatives, as well as by making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. Fourthly, the LT has introduced several political changes, including more cooperation on the common foreign and security policy and how to combat external threats as a global actor with a single voice. Moreover, this essay considers how the LT differs from the Constitutional Treaty, arguing that although no longer a formal constitution, it does maintain constitutional elements. It then looks at some specific issues; in particular, whether legitimacy, transparency and accountability have been improved, and takes the view that while this is the case to some extent, there remains much room to f urther improve. Finally, it also f ocuses on the...

Words: 3778 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

The Versailles Treaty

...The Versailles Treaty By: Kelli Simpson AMH2030-12 Work4 According to my research President Wilson went to Capitol Hill to address the senate With his speech about “peace without victory” although his speech brought about the Fourteen Points Treaty on January 8,1918. The republican senate was against him immediately. He did not care . I believe that the President was trying to make peace with the American people as well as around the world.Wilson was convinced of his cause that he decided to that he himself would go to the peace conference. Although the Fourteen Point Treaty reassured that the America and it’s Allied that they Where fighting for more than imperialist. America wanted peace and the Allies did as well. On January 18, 1919 the peace conference began at the Palace of Versailles. Although the Fourteen Points as known as the Versailles Treaty became one-sided. President Wilson still insisted that liberal terms against the French and the British. The conference went on for months. The allies insisted on getting compensation and security for all of the damages and the loss of land during the Great War with Germany. Even though their were many rules for Germany, They signed the treaty on June 28,1919. According to our text book many of the Americans favored the treaty. President Wilson personally handed the treaty to the senate. Even though the senate house was divided into two different groups with many...

Words: 425 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Treaty of Versailles

...Were Economic Problems the Main Consequence of the Treaty of Versailles for Germany in the Years 1919-1933? Throughout 1919 to 1933 Germany made many socio-economic decisions based on The Treaty of Versailles. This essay explores the extent and importance of economic policies implemented that are related to the Treaty of Versailles and whether they were the main consequence that came of it. The essay is divided into one side agreeing with the statement and one disagreeing with the statement. Economic Problems were largely the main consequence of the Treaty of Versailles and played a vital role in the instability and volatility of the Weimar Republic. At the end of the war many countries had to rebuild, especially after the widespread devastation and financial ruin that the war left them in. Germany, just like Britain and France had to recover, however at the Treaty of Versailles they were made out to be guilty and therefore had to pay huge reparations; this was a double blow to Germany , on top of rebuilding costs Germany had to pay 132 Billion Marks (equivalent of $33 Billion). This, coupled with the already outstanding war debt of 150 Billion marks crippled the government financially. The pressure took its toll and when Germany failed to pay its reparations (December 1922) the Ruhr was resultantly taken away. With no industrial and agricultural output the crisis escalated rapidly; inflation became hyperinflation. Hyperinflation was devastating the economy, causing widespread...

Words: 480 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

The Treaty of Lisbon

...Curs 2 The Treaty of Lisbon The treaty was signed by the heads of states of government of the 27 member states in Lisbon on the 13.12.2007. It has entered into force on 1.12.2009 after being ratified by all member states. It amends the treaty on the EU and the European Community’s treaty without replacing them. The EC treaty is renamed “The treaty of the functioning of the EU”. According to the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU replaces and succeeds the community. Therefore, the following terms will no longer be used: European Community, European communities or community law. Reference will be made only to the EU and the EU law. Following the treaty of Lisbon, the articles within the treaty on EU and the EC treaty, now the treaty on the functioning of the EU, are renumbered as part of the simplification process. According to the amendments brought by the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has legal personality, and therefore it has the capacity to enter into international treaties and agreements on behalf of the member states. In addition, the 3 pillars of the EU provided by the Treaty of Maastricht are now merged, but special procedures are still maintained in the field of foreign policy, security and defense. However, reference will no longer be made to the 3 pillars of the EU. The main reforms introduced by the Treaty are as follows: * More powerful role for the EU parliament, within the European legislative process * A greater involvement of the national parliaments...

Words: 1219 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Versailles Treaty

...Congress of Vienna in 1815, which ended the Napoleonic Wars—perhaps the first true “world war”; and the various Paris settlements which ended the first world war which is generally referred to as such in 1919, which I will call collectively the Versailles Treaty for convenience’s sake. Largely the same countries were the major players: France, Britain, and Russia took part in each settlement. Meanwhile, Germany and Austria, major players at Vienna, were excluded from the Versailles talks, as punishment for being the defeated and supposedly responsible party. Similarly, the United States was a major force in shaping the Versailles settlement, while a century before, it had stayed out of the Napoleonic conflict, and besides did not have enough power at that time to merit a major role at the table even if it had become involved. Nonetheless, the inherent similarity remains; both the Vienna and Versailles treaties were attempts by the major western powers to realign and redraw large portions of the world map in order to create a lasting peace. Both treaties were concerned with statecraft, either consolidating old entities into new ones, or breaking apart empires ostensibly in the name of nationalism, on a scale which no other treaty has attempted before or since. All this was done, in both cases, to hopefully create a lasting peace, a stable order. The Vienna Settlement created nearly a century without major conflict in Europe, a feat completely unprecedented in that continent’s...

Words: 3437 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Treaty of Versailles

...Week 2: Versailles: The Allies’ “Last Horrible Triumph” Steven A. Smith Chamberlain College of Nursing Week 2: Versailles: The Allies’ “Last Horrible Triumph” The Treaty of Versailles, drafted by the Allied Forces, was drafted in with good intentions by some but not all. In the following writing, I will portray some of the complaints by Germany. As well as, what they believed would have led to them being treated differently in the sanctions. I will also delve into the higher “fundamental laws” in the document that side with the German viewpoints. There were many views of the treaty and although I have mine, its important to also views the points of those who would defend the treaty and the reasons for it. There were many provisions written in the treaty but most of which were geared toward Germany and its peoples. Their economy would be damaged and controlled by the Allied Powers with no end in sight. “Germany must promise to pay an indemnity, the amount of which at present is not even stated” (German Delegation, 1919). This indemnity later led Germany to borrowing money to pay reparations to other states. It is worth noting, the Germans were not part of the commission, which was mainly compromised of its enemies from the war. Many of the economic strong points/areas in Germany were given to foreign nations. Also, many of the ways to ship goods and such were controlled by foreigners who could limit the growth possible for the nation. Giving away key cities, controlling...

Words: 656 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

The Treaty of Waitangi

... Kororareka became a well-known stop for sailors, gaining the nickname, “hell hole of the pacific” as lawlessness and brothels thrived (Walker, 1990). Māori had concerns that Pakeha were becoming progressively unruly and compelled Pakeha leaders to control their people. James Busby was consigned by the Crown to establish order and govern the settlers. With concerns of Frenchman Charles de Thierry’s desire to claim Aotearoa (State Services Commission, 2005, p. 17), Busby persuaded 34 chiefs to sign a Declaration of Independence for New Zealand (Orange, 2004). Unfortunately this had no immediate effect and subsequently Captain Hobson was sent to Aotearoa specifically for annexation (King, 2003). Overnight, Hobson and Busby drafted the treaty, missionary Williams and his son translated it to Māori. February 6 1840 at Waitangi 40 Chiefs signed (Orange, 2004). Orange (2004) suggests a number of discrepancies...

Words: 1619 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Judging the Quality of Legal Treaty Making

...construct a treaty that would relocate the First Nations peoples to a dedicated land claim elsewhere. As a result, Treaty Nine (also referred to as “The James Bay Treaty”) was established on July of 1905, between the Government of Canada, in the name of King Edward II, and various First Nations groups in Northern Ontario (Treaty Texts, n.d.). The Ojibwa and Cree were two key groups involved in the signing of this treaty, representing their people in agreement with the government's terms. They had the basic idea that the treaty was one of sharing and friendship and their goal was to establish a relationship with the government of the day, where they could share the land and take part in the decisions affecting it (The Mushkewgowuk and Anishinaabe Peoples, 2009). They were poor and needed assistance, blindly welcoming the opportunity to start a discussion and enter into a treaty with Canada, which was thought to be an agreement that would bind each party together in good faith (George MacMartin's Big Canoe Trip, 2014). Hunting, fishing and trapping rights were of great significance and needed to be secured in an agreement with the government but the Indians also needed monetary help, schools for their children and to know that they would not be interfered with in their traditional lifestyles on the land and waters. Nevertheless, oral understandings of the treaty show that what was discussed and agreed to by the Indian peoples was not reflected in the written treaty; there is a...

Words: 2010 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Treaty Of Versailles Dbq

...learning about how World War I ended. The Versailles Treaty was created by the winners of World War I like France, Great Britian, and the United States to make peace. How did it help contribute to an even worse war less than twenty years later? The Treaty of Versailles helped because World War II by treating Germany harshly. This harsh treatment can be seen in three areas: territorial losses, military...

Words: 704 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

1919 Treaty Of Versailles

...This essay discusses the edicts of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles that listed the punishments of Germany for in their eyes starting World War One. Their punishments included the taking over of all territories and the colonies of Germany on and off the continent of Europe. World War I was fought between between Austria-Hungary and its allies Germany and Serbia and its allies America,Britain,and France It lasted from August 1, 1914 until November 11, 1918. The winners of WWI, the Allies met in Versaille to negotiate the end of the war. Prior to the war Germany had colonies in 8 different countries. Germany was a less aggressive colonizer because they traditionally worked on conquering Europe and not having a colony. Germany did not use colonies...

Words: 268 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Reparations in Treaty of Versailles

...Protests against the Treaty of Versailles in Germany. Protests against the Treaty of Versailles in Germany. Question: What were ‘reparations’, and what changes were made to the Treaty of Versailles over this issue between 1919 and 1932? Question: What were ‘reparations’, and what changes were made to the Treaty of Versailles over this issue between 1919 and 1932? Versailles Treaty Reparations on Germany Versailles Treaty Reparations on Germany Word Count: 1,101 Word Count: 1,101 2014 2014 Joel Joel Versailles Treaty Reparations on Germany Versailles Treaty Reparations on Germany What were ‘reparations’, and what changes were made to the Treaty of Versailles over this issue between 1919 and 1932? After WWI, following the defeat of the Central Powers, the Treaty of Versailles, designed chiefly by France, Britain, and USA, was signed by Germany. The treaty was intended to suppress Germany under the reins of a ‘harsh peace’. The conditions of the treaty subjugated Germany in many ways: Germany had to accept guilt for starting the war, had land taken in what is known as the Territorial Clauses, had limits put on their military power in what is known as disarmament, and were excluded from the League Of Nations; but worst of all the terms, Germany had to pay reparations – the bill to compensate for war damages. Article 232 of the Versailles Treaty read, “The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make...

Words: 1701 - Pages: 7