CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ EXPERIMENTS WITH INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE PARIS… be rare in the period before the World War I. Consequently, legal scholarship referred 11 to them as to “ experiments ” in international administration. Notwithstanding the fact, these commissions were not considered to be subjects of international law, 12 their powers triggered 13 attention of the scholars of international administrative law and became subject of their frequent interest. First of these commissions, L’Administration générale de l’octroi de navigation du Rhin , had primarily fiscal duties, including the collection of tolls and responsibilities for police and general control. 14 It was succeeded by the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine , formally instituted in 1815. Further, the European Commission of the Danube ( Commission Européenne du Danube) , as established by the General Treaty for the Re-establishment of Peace of 1856, had used to represent a salient example of such body. 15 This Commission, composed from the delegates of the United Kingdom, France, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Russia and the Sublime Porte, had become “an administrative and judicial as well as an engineering and planning commission, with more extensive powers than have been enjoyed by any other river- regulating commission.” 16 The Spitzbergen Commission, established 17 to temporary administer 11 KREHBIEL, E.: ‘The European Commission of the Danube: An Experiment in International Administration’ [1918] Political Science Quarterly 38-55, SAYRE, F.: Experiments in International Administration (Harper & Brothers 1919), SALTER, A.: Allied shipping control, An experiment in international administration (Clarendon Press 1921), KAECKENBEECK, G.: The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (Oxford University Press 1942), RANSHOFEN-WERTHEIMER, E.: A great experiment in international administration (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1945) etc. 12 In this respect, Francis Sayre (n 11) provides for overview of various opinions concerning this topic. Here, he also quotes the opinion expressed by HERSHEY, A.: in his The essentials of international public law (Macmillan Company 1912, 207), that “the Danube Commission appears to form a distinct International Person, having the power of prescribing and enforcing penalties for the violation of its regulations”. 13 KAZANSKY, P.: ‘Les premiers éléments de l’organisation universelle’ [1897] Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 238-247, REINSCH, P.: Public International Unions: Their Work and Organization – A Study in International Administrative Law (Ginn & Company 1911), WOOLF, L.: International Government (Brentano’s 1916), KAUFMANN, W.: ‘Les unions internationales’ [1924] Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International 177-290, RAPISARDI-MIRABELLI, A.: ‘Théorie générale des unions internationales’ [1925] Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International 341-393, RAPISARDI-MIRABELLI, A.: ‘Die Internationalen Unionen als Form der völkerrechtlichen Organisation’ [1927] Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 11- 21, BLACKBURN, G.: ‘International Control of the River Danube’ [1930] Current History 42-46, REIFF, H.: ‘The United States and the International Administrative Unions’ [1937] International Conciliation 627-653, KUNZ, J.: ‘Experience and Techniques in International Administration’ [1945] Iowa Law Review 31-50. 14 WOLFRUM, R.: ‘International Administrative Unions’ in: Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 5 – International Organisations in General (North Holland 1983) 43-44. 15 It is a matter of fact, that the General Treaty of 1856 established the European Commission of the Danube as a temporary body, which was to be replaced by a permanent international commission two years later (Article XVIII). The latter had to be composed of delegates of Austria, Bavaria, Württemberg, the Sublime Porte (one of each of those States) to whom were to be added commissioners from the two Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), whose nomination had to be approved by the Porte. The General Treaty of 1856 provided in its Article XVII for following competencies of this permanent commission: a) to prepare regulations of navigation and river police, b) to remove any impediments preventing the applications of the Treaty to Danube, c) to order any necessary works to be executed throughout the whole course of the river, d) to maintain the mouths of the Danube and the neighbouring parts of the Sea in a navigable state. However, due to animosity of other powers except of Austrian, the permanent commission had never started to execute these powers. 16 CHAMBERLAIN, J.: The Regime of the International Rivers: Danube and Rhine (Columbia University 1923) 57-58. 17 Karl Neumeyer (n 2) 568-569.

83