06.10.08 POLI 383 #/10 = Letter Grade = # < (Less than or equal to) .40 - Gentini v Venezuela Italy submitting the claim on behalf of its’ citizen. Cannot is one word, not two. Plurals are not the same as possesives. Be clear in your wording, watch grammer. Want to be succinct, but also must be precise & clear. Care in reading and writing is very, very important. Venezuela COULD NOT invoke a statute of limitations. Be clear about when Rolston is speaking for himself, and when he is reporting what others think. Do not refer to anything not written in the text, or you are getting into commentary. Report the text, insert nothing beyond this. If referring to the case, do not give the citation, name the case. (e.g. 4 Moore) Gentini case is a logical structure. The Logical Structure of Gentini: 1. Does prescription apply in International No, go to the merits of the case. Law?

Yes. 2. Does it apply to monetary damages btwn No: go to merits of claim States? Yes. Gentini is very logical:

Does Prescription apply in International Law?

- If No: Go to merits of Claim

- If Yes: next

Does it apply to Money Damages Between States?

- If No: Go to merits of the Claim

- If Yes: next

Is it a legal defense?

- If Yes: Go to the merits of the case

- If No: Next

Arguments do need to be in sequence. Total possible points are out of 10. Two very essential groups of facts: 1: Italian national, suffers abuse in Venezuela. 1: Proofs taken shortly after, but case not presented to Italian legation. Issue: Is Gentini’s case barred by prescription? 1 point. Just because prescription is valid does not mean that the case is barred. Decision: The case in barred due to prescription. 1 point. Sub issues can be included, but these are the main ones which must be included. Pious Fund case = .5 point Pious Fund only talking re: domestic = .5 Prescription not barred = .5 Property or territory = .5 Does it apply to monetary claims? = .5 Domestic = .5 Same btwn states = .5 Is prescription purely legal? = .5 No, comes from considerations of the highest equity = .5 Are there limitations? = .5 Do they apply here? NO. = .5 Rights neglected so long, belief in their non-existance = .5

There are now limits on if you can sue a government. TAAG v Ronair TAAG v Ronair 1982

See Cases and Materials

- The court allowed TAAG, a state-owned airline, to sue, despite the fact that the Angolan government had not been recognized, because there was no objection on the part of the US Executive Branch.

Sounds like Cibrario but turns out differently. They are an agency of a non-recognized government. As US gov’t had not protested, allowed them to go forward with suit. As it is a purely commercial transaction, allows the suit to go through. Will often decide a case on narrow grounds, rather than wider more, political grounds. Can’t allow unrecognized governments to have powers (the right to sue in their courts), which the Executive Branch does not want them to have.

If the Executive Branch had said no, would have had no choice but to block. They did not, so the courts can be allowed to go through. As it is an agent, allowed the suit to go through. Haile Selassie v Cable Haile Selassie v Cable and Wireless (UK) 1938

The Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, sued to recover a debt owed to the Ethiopia state. As this was going on, following the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, the UK recognized the King of Italy as ruler of Ethiopia.

- Once de jure recognition was given to the King of Italy as the ruler of Ethiopia, the previous Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, lost his standing to sue to recover a debt owed to the Ethiopian state.

The UK gov’t had stopped recognizing Haile Selassie as leader during the case. De jure recognition had gone to the King of Italy as ruler of Ethiopia. This reduces Haile to a private individual. DE JURE, DE FACTO: Essentially very similarly. DE JURE: Recognizing the government as the legitimate ruler. DE FACTO: Recognizing the government as the ruler TODAY. There is less sense of permanency. The Arantzazu Mendi The Arantzazu Mendi (UK)

During the Spanish Civil War, the UK recognized de jure the Republican government of Spain, but also recognized de facto the

- A de facto government has control over state assets within the

1939 rebel government (the Nationalists). Both governments sued in British courts to control the Spanish-flagged vessel Arantzazu Mendi, then in a British port.

territory it controls. A de jure government has control even over state assets abroad.

A de jure government has control over state assets abroad. Therefore, Spain has control of the Arantzazu Mendi. Gdynia Ameryka Line v Boguslawski Gdynia Ameryka Line v Boguslawski (UK) 1950

At the start of WWII, the government of Poland fled to exile in the UK. On June 28, 1945, a Soviet-backed government of Poland was created as the de facto government of Poland, in Lublin. On July 4-5, 1945, the UK withdrew de jure recognition from the government in exile in London and gave it to the Lublin government. A question arose as to the retroactive effects of Lublin’s regulations regarding the Polish merchant marine on those of the London government on shipping under its (London’s) control.

- The House of Lords (where the case was ultimately decided) ruled that the effect of the withdrawal of recognition from the London government and the de jure recognition of the Lublin government would not have a retroactive effect on shipping outside of the realm of control of the Lublin government. (I.e., the regulations of the London government would be deemed effective up to July 4-5, 1945).

As occupiers of Poland, they could do what they want. But, cannot extinguish the legal existence of the country as the situation is under question. From June 28th, Lublin government should have affect. Nope, they could have control over their stuff, but London would still have control, until July 4-5 1945 when the Lublin government would have control over everything.

This is very much a matter of reasoning, and intent.