meeting the requirements of an army of occupation but for supplying the naval, military and civilian needs of Japan both at home and abroad, during the course of the war against the Allied Powers." Citing the decisions of the International and United States Military Tribunals, Whyatt concluded that "the seizure and the subsequent exploitation by the Japanese armed forces of the oil resources of the appellants in Sumatra was in violation of the laws and customs of war and, consequently, did not operate to transfer the appellants' title to the belligerent occupant." 51 Am. J. Int'l. L. at 808 (1957).

15 Stone, p. 697.

16 E. Lauterpacht, p. 222.

17 von Glahn, p. 209.

18 See, Stone, p. 698.

19 von Glahn, p.

19a It has been asserted that the oil activities and rights in the Gulf are those of GUPCO (the Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company) and not those of Amoco. However, GUPCO is a nonprofit Egyptian corporation which carries out operations under the concession agreement as the agent of Amoco and EGPC (Egyptian General Petroleum Company). The use of an agent does not affect the status of Amoco as a principal in the operations conducted and rights held under a concession.

20 This is the considered opinion of the State Department Geographer. Egypt has taken none of the actions which would have been necessary to extend the territorial sea through baselines, or to close the Gulf and make its waters internal. While Egypt claims a twelve mile territorial sea, the United States continues to refuse recognition to any claims beyond three.

21 Even in a case of state succession, acquired rights of a concessionaire must be respected by a successor state. D. P. O'Connell, “Economic Concessions in the Law of State Succession", 27 Brit. Y. B. Int'l L. 93, 116 (1951). A fortiori, they must be respected by a belligerent occupant whose rights fall far short of a successor sovereign's. The United States appears to have considered property rights based on concessions to be protected, and the occupant bound to respect those rights, even prior to the Hague Regulations. See Cummings, n. 148, pp. 570-571, and the numerous authorities cited therein.

22 In the Lighthouse Case, the Permanent Court of International Justice considered as binding a concession contract for the usufruct of public immovable property granted in 1913 by the absent sovereign, Turkey, while the territory was under Greek belligerent occupation. The ad hoc judge appointed by the Greek Government argued that the occupant has the exclusive right to grant a concession to the usufruct of public immovable property. However, the majority did not acknowledge such a rule. The Court found it could decide without ruling on the point. The concession agreement, while concluded in 1913, covered the period 1924-1949, long before which the occupant, Greece, had become the sovereign. World Court Reports, Hudson, ed., Vol. III, pp. 368, 383, 388-89, 407-409.

23 Looking to pre-World War II authority, McNair stated: "It is at any rate arguable that, assuming the new law to fall within the category of that large portion of national law which persists during the occupation and which the enemy occupant cannot lawfully change or annul, it ought to operate in occupied territory in spite of the absence of power to make it effective during the occupation." McNair, Legal Effects of War (1948) p. 383. The matter is somewhat differently stated in the leading American case: "In short, the legitimate sovereign should be entitled to legislate over occupied territory insofar as such enactments do not conflict with the legitimate rule of the occupying power." State of Netherlands v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York et al., 201 F.2d 455 at 462 (U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit 1953). See this opinion for a thorough statement of the law and for citations to the relevant cases. "The currently accepted

principle appears to be that the legitimate sovereign may legislate for an occupied portion of his territory, provided that his laws do not conflict with the powers of the occupant as outlined in conventional international law." von Glahn, p. 35, Apparently, only the post-war decisions of Greek courts are contra.

Dept. of State File No. P77 0032-292.

Kempton B. Jenkins, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, replied by letter of October 19, 1976, to a question concerning the applicability to Israeli-occupied territory, formerly under Jordanian rule, of article 47 of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (TIAS 3365; 6 UST 3516). The questioner had suggested that it might be an obstacle to peace "for parties other than the Israelis or Jordanians to attempt to introduce changes in situations or government forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention's article 47." Mr. Jenkins stated:

A full reading of article 47 and the official International Red Cross commentary on its provisions makes clear that article 47 does not bear directly upon the theoretical possibility [of] a transfer of West Bank territories to a political entity not in existence prior to June 1967. Article 47 provides that protected persons in an occupied territory shall not be deprived of the specific benefits set out in the Fourth Convention through changes introduced into the institutions or government of the occupied territory as a result of occupation, by agreements between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, or by annexation. This article is humanitarian in character. Its object is not to protect the preexisting political institutions or governmental machinery as such; rather it requires at minimum that if any modifications in the internal organization of an occupied territory take place, they must not deprive protected civilians of the benefits and safeguards spelled out in the Fourth Convention.

The protection of article 47, therefore, does not directly affect the possibility that an eventual political settlement regarding the West Bank may include participation by entities other than Israel and Jordan.

Dept. of State File No. P76 0162-1289. Art. 47 of the Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War reads:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

The Security Council of the United Nations, on May 26, 1976, concluded a series of meetings on the situation in Israeli-occupied Arab territories with a statement by French Representative Louis de Guiringaud, as President of the Council, expressing the view of the majority of the members that certain measures taken by Israel in

those territories "constitute an obstacle to peace." The statement called upon Israel to comply strictly with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (TIAS 3365; 6 UST 3516; entered into force for the United States February 2, 1956, subject to a reservation and statement), and it asked Israel "to refrain from and rescind any measure that would violate them."

The United States dissociated itself from the statement. Ambassador William W. Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, in an address to the Security Council, expressed agreement with much of the statement but said that it lacked balance. He noted that it made no reference to the Geneva Convention's explicit recognition that the occupying power has the duty to maintain law and order and the right to protect its forces. An excerpt from Ambassador Scranton's statement follows:

We agree . . . that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war is applicable to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. We believe in the importance of following its prescriptions. In fact we made our position on this question clear during the March deliberations in this Council. From the unanimous agreement, therefore, of this Council that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to occupied territories, it follows that all of its provisions apply. We also agree that Israel should scrupulously comply with all the provisions of that Convention. Our position about the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is similarly well known.

We are concerned, however, that the statement of the majority view lacks balance, and it is the element of balance which should be the hallmark of the deliberations of a body charged, as this one is, with maintaining the peace. While the summary statement does contain references to certain provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention describing the obligations of an occupying power, there is no corresponding reference in the statement to those provisions of the Convention which explicitly recognize that the occupying power has the duty to maintain law and order and the right to protect its forces. We object, furthermore, to the fact that the statement is unrelieved by any recognition of the many areas in which Israeli administration of the occupied territories has been responsible and just, as in its administration of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and in its substantial efforts to permit the population to choose their own elected representatives to local government.

In particular, we believe the statement's sweeping injunction to Israel to rescind measures is out of place in this context and at this time.

[W]e would be remiss if we did not call the attention of the Government of Israel to the fact that there are aspects of its policies in the occupied territories, in particular that involving the establishment of settlements, that are increasingly a matter of

concern and distress to its friends throughout the world and are not helpful to the process of peace

Press Release USUN-59(76), May 26, 1976; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIV, No. 1930, June 21, 1976, pp. 797-798. The text of the U.N. Security Council majority statement on the situation in occupied Arab territories follows:

Grave anxiety was expressed over the present situation in the occupied Arab territories; concern was also expressed about the well-being of the population of these territories.

The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. The occupying Power was therefore called upon to comply strictly with the provisions of that Convention and to refrain from and rescind any measure that would violate them. In this regard, the measures taken by Israel in the occupied Arab territories that alter their demographic composition or geographical nature and particularly the establishment of settlements were accordingly deplored. Such measures, which cannot prejudice the outcome of the search for the establishment of peace, constitute an obstacle to peace.

The Security Council should continue to follow the situation closely.

The United States joined in a consensus statement by the U.N. Security Council on November 12, 1976, strongly deploring measures taken by Israel in the occupied Arab territories which altered their demographic composition or geographic nature. It deplored particularly the establishment of Israeli settlements in the territories. The statement affirmed that the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (TIAS 3365; 6 UST 3516) applies to the territories occupied in 1967, and it called upon Israel once again to comply strictly with the provisions of that convention and to refrain from any measure that violates them. It declared invalid the measures and actions taken by Israel which tended to change the legal status of Jerusalem, and it called on Israel to rescind them. In a section worded in general terms, it recognized that "any act of profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites or any encouragement of, or connivance at, any such act may seriously endanger international peace and security."

Ambassador Albert W. Sherer, Jr., U.S. Representative, explained that the United States joined in the consensus because it believed it affirmed several important principles in regard to the occupied territories and reflected long-held and publicly stated U.S. positions. He observed, however, that the United States found the Israeli record in many respects positive, and that in particular Israel had carried out in good faith its obligations to safeguard the Holy Places.

See Note by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/12233, Nov. 17, 1976. For Ambassador Sherer's statement, see U.N. Doc. S/PV.1969, Nov. 11, 1976, pp. 27-30; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1954, Dec. 6, 1976, pp. 692–693. The Security Council consensus statement follows:

As a result of consultations over which I presided with all members of the Council, I am authorized as President to make the following statement on behalf of the Council.

Following the request submitted by Egypt on October 20, 1976, the Security Council held four meetings between November 1 and November 11, 1976, to consider the situation in the occupied Arab territories, with the participation of the representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. After consulting all the members, the President of the Council states that the Council has agreed on the following:

(1) To express its grave anxiety and concern over the present serious situation in the occupied Arab territories as a result of continued Israeli occupation;

(2) Reaffirmation of its call upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the territories and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities;

(3) Its reaffirmation that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Therefore, the occupying power is called upon once again to comply strictly with the provisions of that Convention and to refrain from any measure that violates them. In this regard the measures taken by Israel in the occupied Arab territories that alter their demographic composition or geographical nature and particularly the establishment of settlements are accordingly strongly deplored. Such measures which have no legal validity and cannot prejudice the outcome of the search for the establishment of peace constitute an obstacle to peace; (4) It considers once more that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon and the transfer of populations which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change that status, and urgently calls upon Israel once more to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem. In this connection the Council deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for Security Council Resolutions 237 (1967) of June 14, 1967, 252 (1968) of May 21, 1968, and 298 (1971) of September 25, 1971, and General Assembly Resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of July 4 and 14, 1967;

(5) Its recognition that any act of profanation of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites or any encouragement of, or connivance at, any such act may seriously endanger international peace and security.

The Council decides to keep the situation under constant attention with a view to meeting again should circumstances require.

On Nov. 16, 1976, Secretary of State Kissinger sent a letter to Senator Jacob Javits concerning the U.S. action in associating itself with the consensus statement, and the reasons for adopting that position. For the text of Secretary Kissinger's letter see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1954, Dec. 6, 1976, pp. 693-695.

War Crimes

The Department of State announced on January 29, 1976, that it had approached the Soviet Government to request information about alleged war crimes, in German-occupied territory behind the Eastern Front during World War II, by three persons now residing in the United States. The request was made in a diplomatic note presented by the American Embassy in Moscow to the Consular Administration of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs on January 26, 1976. The Department stated that any information provided by the Soviets would be forwarded to the Department of Justice for use in possible Immigration and Naturalization Service administrative proceedings on whether these individuals concealed material information about their backgrounds in obtaining permanent resident status or naturalization in the United States. The State Department stated further that privacy and due process considerations would prohibit it from releasing any information about the individuals, or