461.11/9–1348
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Smith) to the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union (Vyshinsky)1
Excellency: I have the honor to refer to the periodic reservations by my Government of American rights and interests arising out of actions of Soviet authorities affecting property rights, whether by nationalization, confiscation, or otherwise, in the Soviet Union, in Soviet administered territory, or in territory under control of Soviet authorities or agencies.
My Government has instructed me to inform Your Excellency that the Government of the United States has reserved, and will continue to reserve, American rights and interests, under the accepted rules of international law, as to such property rights, despite the fact that Soviet legislation makes no provision for compensating the American owners of the affected properties. After the most careful consideration and study of the recent replies of the Soviet Union to the inquiries of my Government as to the status of the property of American nationals, my Government is compelled to observe that while such replies recite that under Soviet law compensation is not afforded, they are incomplete iii that they are silent as to the pecuniary obligations of the Soviet Union to my Government and American nationals under international law.
In this connection my Government has instructed me to point out that my Government, in connection with its own responsibilities, extends [Page 912] to the Soviet Union and Soviet nationals the rights and benefits accorded them under international law and, accordingly, desires an expression of views from the Soviet Union as to whether it recognizes the generally accepted and reciprocal rule among nations that just, adequate, and effective compensation is to be promptly made by a Government which nationalizes, confiscates, or otherwise interferes with the property of another Government or of its nationals.2 My Government has instructed me to invite Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that the references made by the Soviet Union, in its written replies to my Government’s inquiries, to the provision of Soviet municipal law that land is the property of the State and that Soviet municipal law does not provide for compensation to Soviet citizens or others, do not affect the obligation, under international law, of the Soviet Government to my Government where the property of American nationals has been nationalized or confiscated.
Assuming that the Soviet Government does recognize the long existing and universally entertained international rule as to just, adequate, and effective compensation where property has been nationalized, confiscated, or otherwise interfered with, and in the absence of a local remedy providing for such compensation in the Soviet Union, my Government instructs me to inquire whether conversations may not ensue between our Governments as to the most feasible method of now preparing and presenting to the Soviet Government the formal diplomatic claims of my Government arising out of the actions of the Soviet Government.
Accept [etc.]
- A copy of this note was enclosed with despatch No. 677 from Moscow on September 13. The text of the note had been sent in the Department’s instruction No. 114 to Moscow on July 12. It was presented at 1 p. m. on August 25.↩
- In a memorandum of October 4 to G. Frederick Reinhardt, the chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, Samuel Herman, assistant to the Legal Adviser, commented: “The note states a hitherto uncontroverted proposition of international law. It asks if the Soviet Union concurs in principle and invites discussion. Some thirteen years have elapsed since the breakdown of the claims settlement negotiations of 1934–1935. At that time the Soviet Union concurred in principle. The claims feature of the Roosevelt–Litvinoff agreements of 1983, attendant upon recognition, has been partially executed by the Litvinoff assignment. A fund under the assignment continues to accumulate in the Treasury. The remainder of the settlement remains unnegotiated and unsettled.” (461.11/8–2648)↩