Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
The Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany was signed on September 10, 1952, entered in force on March 27, 1953. According to the Agreement, West Germany was to pay Israel for the costs of "resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees" after the war, to compensate individual Jews, via the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, for losses in Jewish livelihood and property resulting from Nazi persecution. In 1952, first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion argued that the reparation demand was based on recovering as much Jewish property as possible "so that the murderers do not become the heirs as well", his other argument was that the reparations were needed to finance the absorption and rehabilitation of the Holocaust survivors in Israel. According to the website of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, or Claims Conference, "In response to calls from Jewish organizations and the State of Israel, in September 1951 Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany addressed his Parliament: "… unspeakable crimes have been committed in the name of the German people, calling for moral and material indemnity … The Federal Government are prepared, jointly with representatives of Jewry and the State of Israel … to bring about a solution of the material indemnity problem, thus easing the way to the spiritual settlement of infinite suffering."
One month after Adenauer's speech, Nahum Goldmann, co-chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and president of the World Jewish Congress, convened a meeting in New York City of 23 major Jewish national and international organizations. The participants made clear that these talks were to be limited to discussion of material claims, thus the organization that emerged from the meeting was called the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany—the Claims Conference; the Board of Directors of the new conference consisted of groups that took part in its formation, with each member agency designating two members to the board. "The Claims Conference had the task of negotiating with the German government a program of indemnification for the material damages to Jewish individuals and to the Jewish people caused by Germany through the Holocaust." Following the Holocaust, Israel's relations with Germany were tense. Israel was intent on taking in. Israel was recovering from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and was facing a deep economic crisis which led to a policy of austerity.
Unemployment was high and foreign currency reserves were scarce. David Ben-Gurion and his Mapai party took a practical approach and argued that accepting the agreement was the only way to sustain the nation's economy. "There are two approaches", he told the Mapai central committee. "One is the ghetto Jew's approach and the other is of an independent people. I don't want to run after a spit in his face. I don't want to run after anybody. I want to build here. I'm not going to go to America to take part in a vigil against Adenauer." Negotiations were held between Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett and West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. In 1951, Israeli authorities made a claim to the four powers occupying post-war Germany regarding compensation and reimbursement, based on the fact that Israel had absorbed and resettled 500,000 Holocaust survivors, they calculated that since absorption had cost 3,000 dollars per person, they were owed 1.5 billion dollars by Germany. They figured that six billion dollars worth of Jewish property had been pillaged by the Nazis, but stressed that the Germans could never make up for what they did with any type of material recompense.
Negotiations leading to the Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany began in March 1952, were conducted between representatives of the government of the Federal Republic, the government of the State of Israel, representatives of the World Jewish Congress, headed by Dr. Goldmann; these discussions led to a bitter controversy in Israel, as the coalition government, headed by David Ben-Gurion, claimed that reparations were necessary to restore what was stolen from the victims of the Holocaust. The agreement was signed by Adenauer and Moshe Sharett on September 10, 1952, at Luxembourg City Hall; the German Parliament passed the agreement March 18, 1953, by a large majority, 239 for and 35 against, though only 106 of the ruling CDU/CSU's 214 MPs supported the motion, which relied on the unanimous support of the opposition Social Democrats to get through. The Arab League opposed the motion and threatened a boycott of the Federal Republic of Germany after it passed the restitution agreement, but the plan was abandoned due to economic considerations, namely that the Arab League would suffer far more from losing trade with West Germany than West Germany would from the Arab League.
Public debate was among the fiercest in Israeli history. Opposition to the agreement came from the left of the political spectrum. On 5 November 1951, Yaakov Hazan of Mapam said in the Knesset: "Nazism is rearing its ugly head again in Germany, our so-called Western'friends' are nurturing that Nazism. Our army, the Israel Defense Forces, will be in the same camp as the Nazi army, the Nazis will begin infiltrating here not as our most terrible enemies, b
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, that it may be held either individually or collectively. Aboriginal title was first acknowledged in the early 19th century, in decisions in which indigenous peoples were not a party. Significant aboriginal title litigation resulting in victories for indigenous peoples did not arise until recent decades; the majority of court cases have been litigated in Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, the United States. Aboriginal title is an important area of comparative law, with many cases being cited as persuasive authority across jurisdictions.
Many commentators believe. Aboriginal title is referred to as indigenous title, native title, original Indian title, customary title. Aboriginal title jurisprudence is related to indigenous rights and influenced by non-land issues, such as whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to indigenous peoples. While the judge-made doctrine arises from customary international law, it has been codified nationally by legislation and constitutions. Aboriginal title arose at the intersection of three common law doctrines articulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: the Act of State doctrine, the Doctrine of Continuity, the Recognition Doctrine; the Act of State doctrine held that the Crown could confiscate or extinguish real or personal property rights in the process of conquering, without scrutiny from any British court, but could not perpetrate an Act of State against its own subjects. The Doctrine of Continuity presumed that the Crown did not intend to extinguish private property upon acquiring sovereignty, thus that pre-existing interests were enforceable under British law.
Its mirror was the Recognition Doctrine, which held that private property rights were presumed to be extinguished in the absence of explicit recognition. In 1608, the same year in which the Doctrine of Continuity emerged, Edward Coke delivered a famous dictum in Calvin's Case that the laws of all non-Christians would be abrogated upon their conquest. Coke's view was not put into practice, but was rejected by Lord Mansfield in 1774; the two doctrines were reconciled, with the Doctrine of Continuity prevailing in nearly all situations in Oyekan v Adele. The first Indigenous land rights case under the common law, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut, was litigated from 1705 to 1773, with the Privy Council affirming without opinion the judgement of a non-judicial tribunal. Other important Privy Council decisions include In re Southern Rhodesia and Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria; the former rejected a claim for aboriginal title, noting that: Some tribes are so low in the scale of social organization that their usages and conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions or the legal ideas of civilized society.
Such a gulf cannot be bridged. Two years Amodu Tijani laid the basis for several elements of the modern aboriginal title doctrine, upholding a customary land claim and urging the need to "study of the history of the particular community and its usages in each case." Subsequently, the Privy Council issued many opinions confirming the existence of aboriginal title, upholding customary land claims. Modern decisions have heaped criticism upon the views expressed in Southern Rhodesia; the requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish occupation from a long time ago before the assertion of sovereignty, continuity to the present day. Aboriginal title does not constitute allodial title or radical title in any jurisdiction. Instead, its content is described as a usufruct, i.e. a right to use, although in practice this may mean anything from a right to use land for specific, enumerated purposes, or a general right to use which approximate fee simple.
It is common ground among the relevant jurisdictions that aboriginal title is inalienable, in the sense that it cannot be transferred except to the general government —although Malaysia allows aboriginal title to be sold between indigenous peoples, unless contrary to customary law. In Australia, the content of aboriginal title varies with the degree to which claimants are able to satisfy the standard of proof for recognition. In particular, the content of aboriginal title may be tied to the traditions and customs of the indigenous peoples, only accommodate growth and change to a limited extent. Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the general government, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country; some require the legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land. In Canada, the Crown cannot extinguish aboriginal title without the explicit prior informed consent of the proper aboriginal title holders.
New Zealand required consent, but today requires only a justification, akin to a public purpose requirement. Jurisdict
Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior. It has been defined both as "the Science of Justice" and "the Art of Justice". Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process; the formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people. A general distinction can be made between civil law jurisdictions, in which a legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates their laws, common law systems, where judge-made precedent is accepted as binding law.
Religious laws played a significant role in settling of secular matters, is still used in some religious communities. Islamic Sharia law is the world's most used religious law, is used as the primary legal system in some countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia; the adjudication of the law is divided into two main areas. Criminal law deals with conduct, considered harmful to social order and in which the guilty party may be imprisoned or fined. Civil law deals with the resolution of lawsuits between individuals and/or organizations. Law provides a source of scholarly inquiry into legal history, economic analysis and sociology. Law raises important and complex issues concerning equality and justice. Numerous definitions of law have been put forward over the centuries; the Third New International Dictionary from Merriam-Webster defines law as: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community. The Dictionary of the History of Ideas published by Scribner's in 1973 defined the concept of law accordingly as: "A legal system is the most explicit, institutionalized, complex mode of regulating human conduct.
At the same time, it plays only one part in the congeries of rules which influence behavior, for social and moral rules of a less institutionalized kind are of great importance." There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law". In 1972, one source indicated. McCoubrey and White said that the question "what is law?" has no simple answer. Glanville Williams said that the meaning of the word "law" depends on the context in which that word is used, he said that, for example, "early customary law" and "municipal law" were contexts where the word "law" had two different and irreconcilable meanings. Thurman Arnold said that it is obvious that it is impossible to define the word "law" and that it is equally obvious that the struggle to define that word should not be abandoned, it is possible to take the view that there is no need to define the word "law". The history of law links to the development of civilization. Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, contained a civil code, broken into twelve books.
It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality. By the 22nd century BC, the ancient Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu had formulated the first law code, which consisted of casuistic statements. Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; the most intact copy of these stelae was discovered in the 19th century by British Assyriologists, has since been transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, Italian and French. The Old Testament dates back to 1280 BC and takes the form of moral imperatives as recommendations for a good society; the small Greek city-state, ancient Athens, from about the 8th century BC was the first society to be based on broad inclusion of its citizenry, excluding women and the slave class. However, Athens had no legal science or single word for "law", relying instead on the three-way distinction between divine law, human decree and custom.
Yet Ancient Greek law contained major constitutional innovations in the development of democracy. Roman law was influenced by Greek philosophy, but its detailed rules were developed by professional jurists and were sophisticated. Over the centuries between the rise and decline of the Roman Empire, law was adapted to cope with the changing social situations and underwent major codification under Theodosius II and Justinian I. Although codes were replaced by custom and case law during the Dark Ages, Roman law was rediscovered around the 11th century when medieval legal scholars began to research Roman codes and adapt their concepts. Latin legal maxims were compiled for guidance. In medieval England, royal
Miangas or Palmas is North Sulawesi's northernmost island, one of 92 listed outlying islands of Indonesia. Miangas means "exposed to piracy", because pirates from Mindanao used to visit the island. In the 16th century, the island was named in Spanish Isla de las Palmas, in Portuguese Ilha de Palmeiras. In the Sasahara language, the island is called Tinonda or Poilaten, which mean "people who live separated from the main archipelago" and "our island" respectively. According to local tradition, there were a number of kingdoms in the area. Sangir and Sitaro belonged to two kingdoms and Kalongan. To justify their sovereignty over Miangas, the Dutch argued that the island had been under the domination of the princes of Sangir. In October 1526, Garcia Jofre de Loaísa, Spanish sailor and researcher, was the first European to visit the island; the island was used as a defense site by Talaud people when under attack from the Sulu Sultanate. The island was affected by the outbreak of cholera in 1885, causing hundreds of the inhabitants to move to Karakelang Island.
In 1895, E. J. Jellesma, Oud-resident of Manado, visited Miangas to praise the residents and kapiten laut for rejecting the Spanish flag. Jellesma gave them a Dutch flag. With Jellesma was Pastor Kroll, who baptized 254 residents as Protestants. After Jellesma's visit, a Tahuna assistant resident and Pastor Pannings visited the island in April and October 1909. According to the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines area was all areas within a large geographic box. Miangas lay inside the southern boundary of the box. On 21 January 1906, General Leonard Wood, Governor General of Moro visited the island for the first time, he found the Dutch flag flew there and that the island was claimed as part of the Dutch East Indies. When Wood returned to Zamboanga, he reported it to the United States Military Secretary, on 26 January 1906; the United States government referred the matter to the Netherlands through their embassy in The Hague on 31 March 1906. On 17 October 1906 the Netherlands Foreign Ministry responded with reasons why the island was included in the Dutch East Indies.
On 23 January 1925 the Netherlands and the United States brought the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, under a sole arbitrator Max Huber of Switzerland. On 4 April 1928 Huber decided that the island "forms in its entirety a part of Netherlands territory", it was reported in 2003 that Philippine congressman Harry Roque argues that Spain could not have ceded Palmas or any part of the Philippines to the United States because Filipinos had established the Republic of the Philippines on June 12, 1898 before the Treaty of Paris was signed on Dec. 10, 1898. On 4 July 1956, represented by Ambassador Soehardjo Wirjopranoto, the Philippines, represented by Ambassador Jose T. Fuentebella, signed the Agreement on Immigration Between the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of Indonesia, that allowed border residents in Sangihe, Nunukan and Sarangani, who had a laissez-passer, to cross the border to trade, visit family and travel. On 16 September 1965, Jusuf Ronodipuro of Indonesia and Leon T. Garcia of the Philippines signed a Directives and Guidelines on the Implementation of the Immigration Agreement on Repatriation and Border Crossing Arrangement Between Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of the Philippines, which clarify the first agreement, making Marore, Miangas and Balut the checkpoints.
In 1972, the island was hit by a tsunami, 90 householders were moved by the government to Bolaang-Mongondow Regency as a result. In 2005, the Indonesian government refused a shipping line from Miangas to Davao. In the same year, Miangas Village Secretary Jhonlyi Awala died from a beating at the hands of the Chief of Police of Miangas. About 200 people, dressed in black, demonstrated to express their outrage at the senseless death and the island's neglect by the Indonesian state, they instead raised the Philippine flag. Talaud Regent Elly Engelbert Lasut, who arrived from Manado, de-escalated the situation. According to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Philippine Tourism Authority in February 2009 published a map which included Miangas into the Philippines' territory. A monument, named Monumen Patung Santiago, was built on the island in 2010 to commemorate Santiago who defended the island from the Dutch colonials. In 2011, the island could be reached by ship operated by Pelni. Starting from 12 March 2017, a flight from Manado serves this island once a week.
The flight, operated by Wings Air, lands at Miangas Airport every Sunday. Miangas is located 521 km from Manado, the capital of North Sulawesi and 126 km from Davao City in the Philippines, it lies 80 km southeast of Mindanao. It is 3 km long and 1.2 km wide, with an area of 3.15 km2. Miangas belongs to Talaud Islands Regency; the island is lowland, about 1.5 metres above sea level. The highest point, called Gunung Batu, is 111 metres high, located in the northeast part of the island; this area is covered with coconut palm. In the northeast corner of the island, there is a 46 metre high cliff, with the northeast shore fringed by a 320 m reef. For transportation, Miangas inhabitants once relied on their homemade sailboats. During the New Order, they started using motorboats; these are now the main sources of transportation. In October 2016, Miangas Airport inaugurated by the President Joko Widodo. An inaugural flight serves this airport some months later. Miangas inhabitants derive their main income from fishing.
Women weave mats from pandan leaves. As at the 2010 Census, the island's p
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 18, 1971, constituting at the time the largest land claims settlement in United States history. ANCSA was intended to resolve long-standing issues surrounding aboriginal land claims in Alaska, as well as to stimulate economic development throughout Alaska; the settlement established Alaska Native claims to the land by transferring titles to twelve Alaska Native regional corporations and over 200 local village corporations. A thirteenth regional corporation was created for Alaska Natives who no longer resided in Alaska; the act is codified as 43 U. S. C. 1601 et seq. When Alaska became a state in 1959, section 4 of the Alaska Statehood Act provided that any existing Alaska Native land claims would be unaffected by statehood and held in status quo, yet while section 4 of the act preserved Native land claims until settlement, section 6 allowed for the state government to claim lands deemed vacant. Section 6 granted the state of Alaska the right to select lands in the hands of the federal government, with the exception of Native territory.
As a result, nearly 104.5 million acres from the public domain would be transferred to the state. The state government attempted to acquire lands under section 6 of the Statehood Act that were subject to Native claims under section 4, that were occupied and used by Alaska Natives; the federal Bureau of Land Management began to process the Alaska government's selections without taking into account the Native claims and without informing the affected Native groups. It was against this backdrop. A 9.2-magnitude earthquake struck the state in 1964. Recovery efforts drew the attention of the federal government, which found that Alaska Natives had the poorest living conditions in the country; the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska decided that Natives should receive $100 million and 10% of revenue as a royalty. Nothing was done with this proposal, a freeze on land transfers remained in effect. In 1966, Emil Notti called for a statewide meeting inviting numerous leaders around Alaska to gather and create the first meeting of a committee.
The historic meeting was held October 18, 1966 - on the 99th anniversary of the transfer of Alaska from Russia. Notti presided over the three-day conference as it discussed matters of land recommendations, claims committee's, political challenges the act would have getting through congress. Many respected politicians and business men attended the meeting and delegates were astonished at the attention which they received from well-known political figures of the state; the growing presence and political importance of Natives was evidenced when association leaders were elected to the legislature. Members of the associated gathered and were able to gain seven of the sixty seats in the legislature; when the group met a second time early in 1967, it emerged with a new name, The Alaska Federation of Natives, a new full-time President, Emil Notti. AFN would change the human rights and economic stability of the Alaska Native population forever. In 1968, Governor Walter Hickel summoned a group of Native leaders to work out a settlement that would be satisfactory to Natives.
The group asked for $20 million in exchange for requested lands. They asked for 10% of federal mineral lease revenue. In 1969, President Nixon appointed Hickel as Secretary of the Interior; the Alaska Federation of Natives protested against Hickel's nomination, but he was confirmed. Hickel worked with the AFN, negotiating with Native leaders and state government over the disputed lands. Offers went forth, with each rejecting the other's proposals; the AFN wanted rights to land, while then-Governor Keith Miller believed Natives did not have legitimate claims to state land in light of the provisions of the Alaska Statehood Act. But a succeeding Alaska state administration under Governor William A. Egan would stake out positions upon which the AFN and other stakeholders could agree. Native leaders, in addition to Alaska's congressional delegation and the state's newly elected Governor William A. Egan reached the basis for presenting an agreement to Congress; the proposed settlement terms faced challenges in both houses but found a strong ally in Senator Henry M. Jackson from Washington state.
The most controversial issues that continued to hold up approval were methods for determining land selection by Alaska Natives and financial distribution. In 1968, the Atlantic-Richfield Company discovered oil at Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic coast, catapulting the issue of land ownership into headlines. In order to lessen the difficulty of drilling at such a remote location and transporting the oil to the lower 48 states, the oil companies proposed building a pipeline to carry the oil across Alaska to the port of Valdez At Valdez, the oil would be loaded onto tankers and shipped to the contiguous states; the plan had been approved, but a permit to construct the pipeline, which would cross lands involved in the land claims dispute, could not be granted until the Native claims were settled. With major petroleum dollars on the line, pressure mounted to achieve a definitive legislative resolution at the federal level. In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was signed into law by President Nixon.
It abrogated Native claims to aboriginal lands except those. In return, Natives were paid $963 million; the land and money were to be divided among regional and village tribal corporations established under the law recognizing existing leadership. In