Statutes
| Date | 01 July 1942 |
| Published date | 01 July 1942 |
| Author | Morris Finer |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1941.tb02812.x |
224 MODERN LAW REVIEW
July,
1942
in the ceded or annexed territory,”
so
that on the one hand
a
mere traveller
or visitor has too fleeting
a
residence to be regarded as an inhabitant,”
and, on the other hand, domicil in the strict sense of English law
is
neither
necessary nor sufficient.=
In
Murray
v.
Parkes.
ubi
sufira,
the Court disapproved
of
the contention
that the appellant had acquired Irish and lost British nationality merely
because he was born and domiciled in Eire.
It
is
for this reason that the
decision has significance for international law in general.
It
strengthens
the modern tendency
of
exempting those who are natives of or who are
domiciled inibut not residents of the territory, from the change of nationality.
This problem
of
international law recently acquired considerable prac-
tical importance when Germany invaded Austria. On
that
occasion
it
was
contended that Austrian subjects who
at
the material date were not
resident in Austria and,
of
course, did not return there or submit themselves
to
the new sovereign, did not acquire German nationality, but became
stateless. The Home Office, however, did not accept this view, which,
it
is
submitted, may derive support from the implications of the Divisional
Court’s decision.
F.
A.
MANN.
art.,;^
of
the Harvard Law School’s Draft Convention speaks
of
“habitual
residence.
*‘
The word
’
inhabitants
’
in this connexion must receive its ordinary meaning-
namely, the people residing in the territory lost to
the
Crown, or, to use the
expression of Abbott,
C.
J.,
in
Doe
d.
Thomas
v.
Acklam,
‘
the people composing
the state.’
”
Hall (-Higgins),
I.c.,
speaks
of
those “identified with the conquered
temtory,” a vague and unsatisfactory expression.
Edwards,
1.c.
p.
110;
Liszt (-Fleischmann), p.
152.
The view which makes residence the exclusive test deserves approval,
because it is in harmony with the general conception
of
jurisdiction as understood
by public international law
:
see above note
10.
Humphreys.
J.,
said in
Murray
v.
Parkes,
ubi
supra,
at p.
562:
STATUTES
The
Personal
InlUrieg
(Civilians)
Scheme,
194l
In the last war
280
tons
of
German bombs killed and wounded some
4,500
people on British soil.’ Future improvements make these figures
seem puny, but it was not then possible to experience the complacency
that the greater suffering tends
to
have
for
the less. Charities, organised
in the Prince of Wales Fund, drew widespread support, and were sup-
plemented by Exchequer grants by way
of
relief. But the demands
for
a
comprehensive Government compensation or insurance scheme were
blanketed with assurances that “Germany was going to pay to the
last
farthing.” Claims, due to mature on the day of just retribution, were
filed with the Foreign Claims Office. Restitution “for all damage done
to the civilian population” was provided for by Art.
232
of the Versailles
Treaty. The bill came to more than
i36
millions.’ For each loss
of
civilian
life an average sum
of
L1,+62
was claimed, based
on
the capitalised value
of the pensions supposed to be granted.8 The Civilian War Claimants’
1
The Times History
of
the War.
Vol.
19,
p.
259.
*
Reparation Commission Report, Appdx.
VII.
a
Report
of
the Mixed Claims Commission,
US.
and Germany, p.
206.
To continue reading
Request your trial