INTERNATIONAL LAW, Sixth edition

476 international law
declaring that the courts had to give effect not only to acts done by
the new government after recognition, but also to acts done before the
recognition ‘in so far as those acts related to matters under its control at
the time when the acts were done’. 125 It was stated that while the recognition
of the new government had certain retroactive effects, the recognition
of the old government remained effective down to the date when it was
in fact withdrawn. Problems might have arisen had the old government,
before withdrawal of recognition, attempted to take action with respect
to issues under the control of the new government. However, that was not
involved in this case.
In other words, and in the circumstances of the case, the principle of
retroactivity of recognition was regarded as restricted to matters within
the effective control of the new government. Where something outside
the effective control of the new government is involved, it would appear
that the recognition does not operate retroactively and that prior to the
actual date of recognition one would have to accept and put into effect
theactsofthepreviousde jure government.
This could lead to many complicated situations, especially where a court
is faced with conflicting courses of action, something which is not hard to
envisage when one de jure government has been superseded by another. It
could permit abuses of government such as where a government, knowing
itself to be about to lose recognition, awards its supporters financial or
other awards in decrees that may be enforced in English courts. What
would happen if the new government issued contrary orders in an attempt
to nullify the effect of the old government’s decrees is something that was
not examined in the Boguslawski case.
Another case which came before the courts in the same year was Civil Air
Transport Inc.v.Central Air Transport Corporation, 126 and it similarly failed
to answer the question mentioned above. It involved the sale of aircraft
belonging to the nationalist government of China, which had been flown
to the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Such aircraft were sold to an
American company after the communist government established effective
control over the country but before it had been recognised by the UK. The
Court accepted that the nationalist government had been entitled to the
aircraft and pointed out that:
125 Lord Reid, [1953] AC 11, 44–5; 19 ILR, pp. 81, 83.
126 [1953] AC 70; 19 ILR, pp. 85, 93, 110. See also F. A. Mann, ‘Recognition of Sovereignty’,
16 MLR, 1953, p. 226.