'File 82/34 II (F 94) APOC Concession' [‎63r] (128/362)

Government cannot say that recourse cannot be had to the Council
of the League of Nations unless other remedies have been exhausted,
when the Persian Government, by its own unilateral act, has
deliberately destroyed the very tribunal to which the company was
contractually entitled to go. I think that is extremely, clear, and I
cannot imagine that any other view would be taken by a competent
jurist, or, indeed, by any clear-headed man of affairs.
There is one further point. The Persian representative can be
most persuasive, and he has in an admirable manner endeavoured to
suggest that there is still no question of international law arising
between the parties. May I be allowed to point out, however, that
this is not a question between two individuals, A and B. It is a
question of a contract between a foreigner and the Persian Govern
ment itself. This matter can be examined at greater length later,
and I need not delay the Council by citing authorities, but I venture
Very respectfully to state that this is the position in international
law. Pronouncements by writers of repute in international law state
that if a Government, by executive action or by legislative action,
takes a course which is inconsistent with the terms of the Concession
which it has granted to a foreigner, that is a violation of international
law. Moreover, the Permanent Court of International Justice has
established a finding that respect for the acquired rights of foreigners
forms part of international law. Again, numerous cases have arisen
where Governments have taken up the case of their own nationals
in relation to a foreign Government on the ground that a breach
of international law has been committed. Lastly, several cases of
this kind which have been submitted to international arbitration have
resulted in damages being awarded against the offending State. I
will conclude all that I need say at the moment on this subject by
reading a portion of the judgment that was pronounced in a ease
of that character. There was some time ago an international dispute
which was taken up by the United States Government . against
Salvador because of the fact that the American rights of an
individual had been disregarded. An international tribunal was
appointed, and the following are two paragraphs from the
judgment:—
'' It is abhorrent to the sense of justice to say that one party
to a contract, whether such party be a private individual, a
monarch, or a Government of any kind, may arbitrarily, without
hearing and without impartial procedure of any sort, arrogate
the right to condemn the other party to the contract, to pass
judgment upon him and his acts, and to impose upon him the
extreme penalty of forfeiture of all his rights under it, including
his property and his investment of capital made on the faith of
that contract.
4 ' Before the arbitrement of natural justice all parties to a
contract, as to their reciprocal rights and their reciprocal remedies,
are of equal dignity, and are equally entitled to invoke for their
redress and for their defence the hearing and the judgment of
an impartial and disinterested tribunal."
I heard the Persian representative say something about the
company being judge in its own cause; but I hope I am not
exaggerating when I say that the Government of Persia, one of the
two parties to the Concession, have plainly claimed to be judge in
their own cause. I repeat the language of the judgment which I
have just read, that in such cases the parties are " entitled to invoke
for their redress and for their defence the hearing and the judgment
of an impartial and disinterested tribunal." The United Kingdom
Government, on behalf of a British subject, respectfully ask the
Council of the League of Nations, if no adjustment is arrived at, to
render that impartial and disinterested judgment.
M. DAVAE : I have only a few observations to make in reply.
With regard to the £40 million which I mentioned as being the
profits received by the United Kingdom, I found this sum mentioned
in a work by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was at one time Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
SIR JOHN SIMON : If I may interrupt, I would point out that
the figure given in the book is an estimate of what might possibly be
the ultimate receipts of the United Kingdom Government.
[691 hh—1] d