CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ PERSONAL STATUS OF REFUGEES: THE ORIGINAL INTERNATIONAL SOLUTION a part of diplomatic correspondence, was classified as political and general. It was registered under the number 1A /12086/11812 and its object was completed in handwriting: Réfugiés, Arrangement du 30 Juin 1928. Adhésion de laTchécoslovaquie . 56 The French expression adhésion used therein could be confusing in its meaning. Such a legal concept belonged to a linguistic class of international treaty law. In international practice, such an approach represented an act by which the state in the international environment agrees to be bound by a treaty. 57 Nevertheless, the meaning of the concept, or the meaning of a term, had already been settled in relation to other ways of expressing such an agreement with an international treaty. The diplomatic letter of the permanent representative mentioned the decision implemented by the Czechoslovak government. The government decided to accede ( décidé d’adhérer ) to the Arrangements on Refugees of July 5, 1922, May 31, 1924, May 12, 1926, and June 30, 1928. The personal scope of application of the Arrangement was strictly limited. The declaration included only persons who lost their Russian or Turkish nationality before January 1, 1923 without acquiring any other nationality. The declaration applied to Russian refugees who were deprived of their nationality under a decree issued on December 15, 1921. Other Russian refugees who lost their nationality after the decisive date were excluded from the national implementation of specific provisions. The last Soviet law was issued no sooner than April 22, 1931. In the case of Armenians, the Turkish law of April 15, 1923 confiscated all of their property first. Another law promulgated on March 23, 1927 decided on deprivation of Turkish citizenship. Moreover, many Armenian refugees were deprived of their nationality on the basis of an individual administrative decision after the given date. The permanent representative announced to the Secretary General that the Czechoslovak government accepts the obligations, unless they constitute a derogation from the current legislation. The unilateral declaration is quite linguistically contradictory because it contains the term obligation . The declaration mingled political language with legal language. However, in the penultimate paragraph, the Ministry reserved the possibility to withdraw the acceptance of the recommendation. 58 In the opinion of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was not possible to see anything other than a manifestation of the agreement with the principles of the Arrangement; it was an expression by which Czechoslovakia did not accept any legal obligations. The unilateral declaration to accept the list of arrangements on refugees was considered as an expression of consent that did not result in any international legal obligation to implement the principles agreed during the intergovernmental conference. In any case the declaration was not subordinated to the principle of acta sunt servanda . The report of January 11, 1930 to the President of France noted that the intergovernmental conference held at the end of June 1928 studied various issues of the legal status of refugees and proposed measures to improve their regime that should be applied. The report stated that the Arrangement significantly improves the legal situation of the refugees. 59 On this basis, 56 Société des Nations , archives 1928-1932, registry No. 1A/12086/11812. 57 MASTNÝ, V., Kodifikace mezinárodního práva. In: HÁCHA, E., HOETZEL, J., WEYR, F., LAŠTOVKA, K., Slovník veřejného práva československého . Svazek II, I až O. Brno: Polygrafia – Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1932, p. 209. 58 Société des Nations , archives 1928-1932, registry No. 1A/12086/11812: “En ce qui concerne l ’arrangement de 1928 le gouvernement tchécoslovaque se réserve la possibilité de retirer à n ’importe quel moment son acceptation de la récommandation conférant au Haut Commisaire le droit d’assurer par son représentant aux réfugiés les services mentionnés dans l’arrangement en question.“ 59 Journal Officiel de la Republique Française , 17 janvier 1930, No. 14, p. 570.

91