Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Judgment

Communiqué No. 52/19

(Unofficial)

,The f~llowing infarmation from the RegisLry of the International
Court of J~s'tiichas been communicate do the Press:

The International Court of Justice to-day (~ugust27th, 1952)
delivered Judgment in the case conceming Rights of Nationals of the
U~ited States of America in Morocco,proceedings in which wcre
instituted against thp.United States by an App1icai;ion of th2 Goverment
of the French Republic.

The submission sf the Parties related to the following prlneipal
points :

The application to nationalç of the United SLztes of the
Resident ial Pecree of DecemberjOth, 1948, by which Imports without
official allocation of currency (Imports from the United .States)were, in
the French Zone of Morocco, subjectedto a system of licensing control;

The extent of the consular jurisdictio nhich the Uni-Led States
- rnay ~xercise in the French Zone of Morocco;

The right tu levy taxes on nationals of the United States in
.. Morocco(the question of fiscal.jmmunity); with particular referenee to
the cclnsmption taxes provided for by the Snereefian Dahir of Febrwry
28th, 1948;

The method of,asseçsing the va.lue, under Article 95 of the
General Act of figeciras cf 1906, of goods imported into Morocco.

In its Judgmentdellvered to-day, the Court held:

1. (.~nanimously The Residential Deçree of December 30th,f 948,
exernptedFrancefrom control of imports, while the United States was
subjected tO such control; it thus involved a discriminatiori In favour
of F'rance, This differentia lreatment was not compatible with the Act
of Algsçiras, by virtue of wblch the United States can clairn 50 be
treated as favou~bly as France, as far as economic matterç in Morocco
are concerned, The French submissions, thatthis Decree is in coni
m formity with the econcmicsystem which is applicable to Morocco, must
therefore be re ected.

2. (~nanLinously) WiLh regard to consularjurisdiction Ln the French

Zone of ~orocco, the United States is entitled to exercise such juris-
diction in accordance with the terms of its Treaty with Morocco of
September 16th~ 1836, that Is to Say, inal1 disputes, civil or
criminal; between citizens or protégés of the United States.

3, (BY ten votesto one) It is also entitled to exercise consular
jurisdiction in al1 cases', civil or criminal, brought against citiaens
or protegés of the United States, to the ex3ien-brequired by the pro-
visions of the !kt of Algecirasrelating tu Consular jurisdiction.

4. (By six votes to five) But the other submission sf the United
States relating to corlsular jurisdiction are rejected: it is not
~ntitled bo exercise consda- jurisdiction in otl.ier casesin the French
Zone of Morocco. Its rights in this conncction, which wero acquired
solelyby the cffect of thc most-favouraù-natio clause, came to an end
with ,theterminatio ny'Great Britain of al1 its rights and privileges
of a capitulatory character by tho Franco-British Conventio nf 1937. 5. (~nanimously} The United States had contended that its
nationals were not subject, in principle, to the application of Moroccan
laws, unlessthese lawv had received Its prior assent. There is,
havrever, no provision in any of the Treaties conferring upon the United
States slich a right, a right linked with,the rdgime of capitulations
which cm only exist as a cokollary of consular jurisdlction, so that
if the CO-operation of the United States Consular Courts is requilied to
enforce a law (see 2 and 3 above), the assent of the United States is
esscniial. Rut, subjectto tnis, the contention of the United States
is ill-Sounded, If the application of a law to cttizens of the
Uriited States withou'c itsassentis contrary to ir,terna.tional law, any
dispute which may mise therefsom should be dealt with according to the

ordinary rncth~ds for the sattlment of international disputes.

6. ($y' sLx votes to fbe} Mo treaty provide's any lasis for the
clah of the United States to fiscalh'munity for its cltizens. Nor
cm such an Imrminity, capitulator iyn origin, be justified by the
effectof the mast-favoured-nati clause, siilce no othzr State enjoys
it for the benefit of its nationals.

7. (By sevcn votes to four) As to tlia ccinsumption taxes impused by (.
the ~ahir- c~f Febma~ 28th, 1946, thesc are paxable on 211 ,goeids,
wkether lmportedinto Moroccoor prodi~ced there: .they are not, there-

fora, custornv duticos, the md~u.n rate fur which was f&ed at 12;s by
the signatory ~m+ers-of the Act'of Algeciras. Citiaens of the Ünited
States are no mort3 ~xcmpt;frcm these taxesthan from any others,

8. (~y six votes ta.fi;re) Article 5'5of the Act of iilgeciras lays
:-riorc~no strict rule for tk~valuatior! iifimported goods, A study of
thc prac~ice shce 1906 and of the pre1imimr-y tmrk of the Confcrence
of Algecbas lead the Court to thr: vlex Lhnt this Artlcf e requires an
interpretation which is xore flcxiblc than those respectivelÿ contended
for by France and thc United States, Vsrious factors m~st, be takon
jnto considera,tion by the Customs mthoriti-es: the valueof

merchandise in the country of arigin 2nd Its value 3n the local Moroccan
marketare both eàernents in the appreisal 'of its value.

A declaration is appcnded to the Jl~dg~ent by Judge Hsu Ro, who
expresses the spinion Mat; the United Shtes is not entitled Go.
exerci se consular jur isdi~tion in cases involvlng the application to
United States vitizons of those provisions of the Act of figeciras
wliich, for theirenfarcefilant, cârriod cort,?in sanc",ons.

A joint dissentkg opinior,, signed by Judgcs Hackworth, Badawi,
Carneiro and Sir Benegd Rau, is also appended to the Judgment.

The Hague, August 27th, 1952.