61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

50 On this debate, see section 4.10 included herein.
51 On this point, see Haldemann, Schutz, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 562ff.
52 The use of the term «ordre public» in the Federal Council’s response is extremely dubious. On the one
hand, the impression is created that the anti-Semitic laws in France were adopted to maintain the
public order of the French state and thus protect public safety, health, peace, morality, etc. On the
other hand, the recourse to the concept of the ordre public is also dubious from a legal perspective, as
this concept is derived, in essence, from private international law, not public international law. On
this point, see the comments on the ordre public in section 5.2 included herein.
53 FA, E 1004.1 (-) 413, minutes of the Federal Council, 29 September 1941, no. 1502. On this point,
see Picard, Schweiz, 1994, pp. 194ff.
54 On this point, see Haldemann, Schutz, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 570ff. See also section
4.10.
55 UEK, Flüchtlinge, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 91ff. See also section 3.1. included herein.
56 Stucki to Homberger, 20 December 1941; FA, E 2200.42 (-) -/23, vol. 1. Stucki’s letter was a
response to the legal opinion on the status of Swiss Jews in France which had been compiled by
Arthur Homberger on 21 November 1941 on behalf of Felix Iselin & Tobisa Christ, Solicitors, in
Basel. Homberger had concluded that the new «Jewish legislation» in France was incompatible with
the Franco-Swiss residency treaty of 1993 and therefore could not be applied to Swiss Jews living in
France. Arthur Homberger, Legal opinion of 21 November 1941, p. 15, FA, E 2200.42 (-) -/23,
vol. 1. On this point, see Picard, Schweiz, 1994, pp. 201–203. See also Haldemann, Schutz, 2001
(Publications of the ICE), pp. 573f.
57 Hague Convention V: The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land,
SR 0.515.21.
58 Hague Convention XIII: The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, SR 0.515.22.
59 On this point, see Schindler, Fragen, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), p. 90. On Swiss neutrality in
the Second World War, see also Thürer, Schweiz, 2000, pp. 413–443.
60 Riklin, Neutralität, 1992, p. 196 (pp. 191ff.).
61 Thürer, Perspektive, 1998, p. 139.
62 Thus the Federal Council, with its Ordinance on the Treatment of Neutrality of 14 April 1939,
prohibited the private export of war material to belligerents, which is permitted on principle under
neutrality law. «This self-restriction, motivated by neutrality law», which aimed to achieve a
«morally indisputable neutrality policy», was abolished by the executive just a few days after the
start of the war, however. See Schindler, Fragen, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), p. 92. The arms
companies based in Switzerland continued to enjoy considerable entrepreneurial freedom
throughout the Second World War; see Hug, Rüstungsindustrie, 2002 (Publications of the ICE),
section 4.2.
63 Hague Convention V does not provide a clear definition of which goods are covered by the prohibition
on military export and transit. Until summer 1942, Switzerland upheld a narrow definition
of war material: only goods which could be used directly for military purposes were deemed to war
material. This restrictive interpretation did not conflict with neutrality law: on the contrary, it was
a neutrality policy decision which was based on Switzerland’s broad powers of discretion. On this
point, see Schindler, Fragen, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 96ff. On the historical background,
see Forster, Transit, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 96ff.
64 Schindler, Fragen, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 94ff.
65 Schindler, Fragen, 2001 (Publications of the ICE), pp. 101f. On the historical background, see Hug,
Rüstungsindustrie, 2002 (Publications of the ICE), sections 5.4, 6.2 and 6.6. See also section 4.2
included herein.
417