Statutes
| Published date | 01 December 1942 |
| Date | 01 December 1942 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1942.tb02867.x |
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
Dec.,
1942
essence
of
nationality, viz. duty
of
allegiance and right
to
protection.ag
do no more exist under the laws enacted by Germany with regard to the
persons
to
whom the Order of 25th November,
1941,
applies?
Should the refugees concerned be considered
to
be
stateless
in this
country, the restrictions imposed on enemy aliens by the Aliens Order.
1920,
as
amended, would remain applicable just the same, because section
2
I
(I)
of
this Order expressly provides that “where an alien acquired
a
nationality
at
birth he shall
. . .
be
deemed to retain that nationality unless
he has subsequently acquired by naturalization
or
otherwise some other
nationality, and is still recognized by the Sovereign or State whose nation-
ality he has acquired
as
entitled
to
protection.” Rut in many other
respects, the situation of stateless persons differs from that
of
enemy
aliens, for instance
:
Aliens and, therefore,
also
stateless persons.“O are
entitled to
habeas
corpus,
whereas enemy aliens are not entitled to this
benefit.“ Under section
10
(2)
of
the British Nationality and
Status
of
-4liens Act,
1914.
as
amended up
to
1933.
a
woman who has “married an
alien, and was
at
the time
of
her marriage
a
British subject, shall not, by
reason only
of
her marriage, be deemed to have ceased to be
a
British
subject unless, by reason
of
her marriage, she acquired the nationality
of her husband.” Hence,
a
British-born woman marrying
a
Jewish refugee
of
Germanurigin remains
a
British subject,
if
the husband is considered
stateless in this country!z The Trading with
the
Enemy Act,
1939,
and
the Custodian Order,
1939.
contain provisions which apply
to
enemy
subjects, but not to stateless persons. The Patents, Designs, Copyright
and Trade Marks (Emergency) Act,
1939,
imposes restrictions on patents,
etc.. owned by enemies and enemy subjects; such rights if owned by
stateless persons are not concerned by this Act.
The problem dealt with
in
this paper
is.
therefore,
of
practical impor-
tance in many respects.
PAUL
ABEL.
I.L.D.
(Fienna).
a*
Compare
Calvin’s Case
(1Go8).
z
St.
Tr.
585.
40
Compare
re
Sfoeck
v.
Public 7rusfee
(note
I
I.
above)
:
”
It would appear
that
a
‘stateless person’ might be an alien” (Russell,
J.).
41
Vide
Dicey,
Z.C.
(note
20.
above), pp.
215
and
906.
and
Dicey.
Inliodrrrfiiin
fo
fhe Study
of
fhe Law
of
fhe Consfifution.
p.
220.
R.
v.
Vine Sfreef Police Strpcr-
infendenf,
ex parte
Liebmann
(1916).
I
K.R.
265;
R.
v.
Knockaloe Camp Co?iz-
mandanf,
ex parte
Fmman
(1917), 87.
L.
J.
43.
a*
Vide
Kauffmann,
Z.C.
(above note
4)
who quotes another instance where the
statelessness
of
persons affected
by.
the Order becomes relevant, viz. the deter-
mination
of
the
law
of
succession when such persons die resident outside Great
Britain.
STATUTES
The
U.S.A.
Visiting
Forces Act,
1942
A year ago
or
more the Prime Minister spoke
of
Great Britain and
America getting “mixed up” together. Since then the mixing up has
been rapidly increased not only in the military but in the whole economic
and production field. Now it is being extended to the legal field.
It
was
obvious that the movement to the TJnited Kingdom
of
large American
military, naval, and air forces would involve special arrangements for
jurisdiction over the members
of
those forces,
just
as
the movement
of
the
To continue reading
Request your trial