Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-351_o7jp.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v. PHILIPP 

Opinion of the Court 

The domestic takings rule has deep roots not only in in-
ternational  law  but  also  in  United  States  foreign  policy.
Secretary  of  State  Cordell  Hull  most  famously  expressed 
the principle in a 1938 letter to the Mexican Ambassador 
following  that  country’s  nationalization  of  American  oil 
fields.  The Secretary conceded “the right of a foreign gov-
ernment  to  treat  its  own  nationals  in  this  fashion  if  it  so 
desires.  This is a matter of domestic concern.”  Letter from 
C. Hull to C. Nájera (July 21, 1938), reprinted in 5 Foreign
Relations  of  the  United  States  Diplomatic  Papers  677 
(1956).  The United States, however, could not “accept the 
idea”  that  “these  plans  can  be  carried  forward  at  the  ex-
pense of our citizens.”  Ibid. 

The domestic takings rule endured even as international 
law increasingly came to be seen as constraining how states
interacted not just with other states but also with individ-
uals, including their own citizens.  The United Nations Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention on the 
Prevention  of  Genocide  became  part  of  a  growing  body  of
human rights law that made “how a state treats individual
human beings . . . a matter of international concern.”  Brad-
ley, supra, at 832 (quoting Restatement (Third), pt. VII, In-
troductory  Note,  at  144–145).    These  human  rights  docu-
ments  were  silent,  however,  on  the  subject  of  property 
rights.  See Friedman, supra, at 107.  International tribu-
nals therefore continued to maintain that international law 
governed  “confiscation  of  the  property  of  foreigners,”  but 
“measures taken by a State with respect to the property of
its own nationals are not subject to these principles.”  Gud-
mundsson  v.  Iceland,  Appl.  No.  511/59,  1960  Y.  B.  Eur. 
Conv. on H. R. 394, 423–424 (decision of the European Com-
mission on Human Rights). 

Some criticized the treatment of property rights under in-
ternational law, but they did so on the ground that all sov-
ereign takings were outside the scope of international law,