slovak Government continues to deprive the Czechoslovak people of the possibilities of free contact with other peoples, the free exchange of ideas and the free reception of uncensored news.

It is understandable that the American people would seek by such means as are available to maintain contact with the people of Czechoslovakia with whom they had formerly enjoyed free association and with whom they share many common traditions and beliefs. The American people take a profound interest in the welfare and future of the people of Czechoslovakia. The leaflets borne to Czechoslovakia express the interest of the American public in seeing the welfare of the people there improved through the attainment of a series of goals. Notwithstanding, the Czechoslovak Government claims that these leaflets were subversive and inciting. It consequently appears that in the eyes of the present regime in Czechoslovakia discussion of concrete steps to better the lot of the common man in that country is subversive in nature.

If the Czechoslovak Government desires that this form of communication between peoples not be utilized, it lies within its power to remove the need for such media by opening the barrier to free access to the people of Czechoslovakia. The United States is convinced that free contact between peoples everywhere will contribute greatly to support world peace in which the Government of Czechoslovakia professes continuing interest. The U. S. Government would have no basis for interfering with attempts by private American organizations to establish communication with the people of Czechoslovakia and to convey to them the interest of the American people in their fate.

32. BORDER INCIDENT OF JULY 4, 1954: Note From the American Embassy at Prague to the Czechoslovak Foreign Ministry, July 7, 19541

The Embassy of the United States of America presents its compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honor to state that United States authorities in Germany have reported that the following members of United States armed forces are now in the custody of Czechoslovak border authorities . . . [names and ranks of personnel].2 These soldiers were proceeding innocently without arms along the border in the vicinity of Barnau on July 4 when they were seized by a Czechoslovak patrol at approximately 1830-1900. The Czechoslovak border patrol in this area has already acknowledged that these American soldiers are in Czechoslovak custody. The U.S. Government protests in the strongest terms this abduction of American soldiers and demands their immediate return to U.S. authorities in Germany.

1 Department of State Bulletin, July 19, 1954, p. 91. The abducted personnel were returned to U.S. custody on July 15; ibid.

2 The men later were identified as Capt. Jack M. Davis, Corp. John F. Glasson, and Privates Leonard Tennis, J. W. Griffith, John F. Switzer, Richard J. Jumper, and Ross F. McGinnis. [Footnote in Bulletin]

33. AIRPLANE INCIDENT OF MARCH 10, 1953: Application by the United States to the International Court of Justice, March 22, 19551

SIR:

1. This is a written application, in accordance with the Statute and Rules of the Court, submitted by the Government of the United States of America instituting proceedings against the Government of Czechoslovakia on account of certain wrongful acts committed by MIG-type aircraft from Czechoslovakia within the United States zone of occupation in Germany on March 10, 1953.

The subject of the dispute and a succinct statement of the facts and grounds upon which the claim of the Government of the United States of America is based are adequately set forth in a note delivered to the Czechoslovak Government on August 18, 1954. A copy of the note is attached to this application as an annex.3 The Czechoslovak Government has failed, although the time therefor has long since elapsed and although the United States Government has duly urged the Czechoslovak Government to make reply, to respond to the United States Government's note, but the Czechoslovak Government asserted its contentions in prior diplomatic correspondence on this subject, and the nature of those contentions is adverted to in the

annex.

2. The United States Government notes that the present dispute concerns matters of the character specified in Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court, including subdivisions (a) through (d). As will be seen from the annex, the legal dispute of the United States. Government with the Czechoslovak Government involves, among other questions of international law, the scope and application of international obligations relating to the overflight of intruding military aircraft, embodied in part in the Convention on International Civil Aviation, adopted December 7, 1944; the duties of the ground controllers and pilots of intruding military aircraft with respect to interception and identification by patrolling domestic aircraft in the country of intrusion; the content and application in case of such overflight of obligations to signal between patrolling and intruding aircraft; the nature of the rights, prerogatives and powers of the United States Government and the United States Air Force in the United States zone of occupation in Germany with respect to the control of air

1 Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 18, 1955, pp. 649–650. See also statement of Apr. 5, 1955, by the Department of State (ibid., pp. 648-649); American notes to Czechoslovakia of Mar. 10, and 13, 1953 (ibid., Mar. 30, 1953, pp. 474-475); and Czechoslovak note of Mar. 11, 1953, to the United States (ibid., p. 474). On May 6, 1955, the Czechoslovak Government refused to accept the Court's jurisdiction. The Court announced on Mar. 15, 1956, that the case had been removed from its docket. See statement of Mar. 16, 1956, by the Department of State; ibid., Mar. 26, 1956, pp. 513-514.

A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 140-155.

Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 30, 1954, pp. 302–305, 308-309. Not reprinted here. 4 TIAS 1591; 61 Stat., pt. 2, p. 1180.

traffic in general and the overflight of foreign military aircraft; together with numerous issues of fact which if resolved in favor of the United States Government would constitute breaches of international obligation by the Czechoslovak Government; and the nature and extent of the reparations to be made by the Czechoslovak Government to the United States Government for all these breaches.

The United States Government, in filing this application with the Court, submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case. The Czechoslovak Government appears not to have filed any declaration with the Court thus far, although it was invited to do so by the United States Government in the note annexed hereto. The Czechoslovak Government, however, is qualified to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter and may upon notification of this application by the Registrar, in accordance with the Rules of the Court, take the necessary steps to enable the Court's jurisdiction over both parties to the dispute to be confirmed.

The United States Government thus founds the jurisdiction of this Court on the foregoing considerations and on Article 36 (1) of the Statute.

3. The claim of the Government of the United States of America is briefly that the Government of Czechoslovakia on March 10, 1953 willfully and unlawfully caused MIG-type military aircraft to overfly the Czechoslovak-German border, and without any provocation, to pursue and attack United States Air Force F-84-type aircraft which were engaged in peaceable routine patrol of the air space within the United States zone of Germany, destroying one F-84-type aircraft and causing physical injury to the pilot thereof, an American national, as well as other damage specified in the annexed note. The United States Government claims that in the circumstances described in the annex these actions constituted serious violations of international obligation on the part of the Czechoslovak Government. For these breaches of international obligation the United States Government has demanded and demands monetary and other reparation from the Czechoslovak Government.

At earlier stages of the diplomatic negotiations, which must now be determined to have been exhausted, the Czechoslovak Government asserted an entirely contrary version of the facts, which is described in the annexed note. The United States Government, in further pleadings herein, will more fully set forth such issues of fact and the issues of law in this dispute, for the purpose of hearing and decision by the Court in accordance with the Statute and Rules. It will request that the Court find that the Czechoslovak Government is liable to the United States Government for the damage caused; that the Court award damages in favor of the United States Government against the Czechoslovak Government in the sum of $271,384.16, with interest, and such other reparation and redress as the Court may deem to be fit and proper; and that the Court make all other necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to effectuate its determinations.

4. The undersigned has been appointed by the Government of the United States of America as its agent for the purpose of this application and all proceedings thereon.

Very truly yours,

THE REGISTRAR OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE,
The Hague, Netherlands.

HERMAN PHLEGER

The Legal Adviser of the Department of State

F. Hungary

34. VOGELER CASE: Note From the American Minister at Budapest to the Hungarian Foreign Minister,2 February 1, 1950 *

3

I have the honor to refer to the Hungarian Government's reply of January 7, 1950, to the note which I communicated to you under date of January 35 concerning the case of Mr. Robert A. Vogeler.

I am instructed by my Government to state that it regards the above-mentioned reply of the Hungarian Government as wholly unsatisfactory. The Hungarian Government cannot, in the view of my government, avoid its international responsibilities and obligations in the Vogeler case by asserting this matter is entirely an internal affair of Hungary. The United States Government considers that it has every right to concern itself with the treatment of this American citizen, who has been detained for over two months without access to American Consular representatives or, so far as I am aware, to legal counsel. The United States Government will continue to concern itself with Mr. Vogeler's situation and until his release will hold the Hungarian Government responsible in every particular as regards his well being.

In an interview on January 19 the Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary informed me that, in spite of the repeated representations of the United States Government, Mr. Vogeler would shortly be brought to trial. The United States Government cannot accept such action as

3 Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 27, 1950, pp. 324-325. Mr. Vogeler was arrested Nov. 18, 1949. On Feb. 21, 1950, he was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on charges of espionage and sabotage; ibid., Mar. 6, 1950, p. 378. He was released by the Hungarian authorities on Apr. 28, 1951 (see statement of that. date by the Department of State, infra, doc. 36).

'Not printed.

5 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 16, 1950, pp. 95–96.

justified, especially since the Hungarian Government has refused to give me any explanation of the charges against Mr. Vogeler and has refused all of my requests concerning an opportunity for American Consular Officers to see him.

The Deputy Prime Minister further informed me that the trial of Mr. Vogeler would be public in order that the world might judge the correctness of Hungarian justice and assured me that Mr. Vogeler would have full opportunity to defend himself and might have as many Hungarian lawyers as he desired. In the light of these assurances, I am directed by my government to invite your attention to the following:

1

Without prejudice in any way to its continuing demand for Mr. Vogeler's prompt release and liberty to depart from Hungary or to the reservation of rights respecting possible claims contained in my note of December 20, 1949, the United States Government asserts the right of Mr. Vogeler to the services of legal counsel retained on his behalf irrespective of the membership of such counsel in the Hungarian bar. In this connection, the United States Government requests that the Hungarian Government agree to the immediate entry of a private American lawyer and such assistants as he may require, whose purpose will be to consult at once with Mr. Vogeler and the Hungarian legal counsel retained on Mr. Vogeler's behalf and to associate himself, together with his assistants, in the preparation of Mr. Vogeler's defense. Arrangements are now being made for the retention of such an American lawyer, whose name will be communicated promptly to the Hungarian Government.

The United States Government insists that American Consular Officers and the legal counsel retained on Mr. Vogeler's behalf be afforded immediate and thereafter continuous access to Mr. Vogeler with assurance of adequate opportunity to converse freely with him, prepare his case, and inquire fully into all matters which the Consular Officers, his legal counsel, or Mr. Vogeler may consider pertinent for discussion. The United States Government requests also that the Hungarian Government give unqualified assurances that the legal counsel serving Mr. Vogeler will be wholly free to represent their client in a forthright manner and to conduct the latter's defense in a manner best calculated to serve his interests. Further, the United States Government requests that Mr. Vogeler's legal counsel and the American Consular representatives observing the trials shall have free access day by day to the verbatim record of the proceedings of the court in this case. The United States Government also desires assurance that representatives of the American Legation, Consular or otherwise, will be allowed to attend the trial and that American newspaper correspondents wishing to proceed to Hungary for the same purpose will be permitted to do so and will be admitted to the sessions of the court.

During my interview on January 19, the Deputy Prime Minister

1 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 2, 1950, pp. 21-22. See also Hungarian note of Dec. 24, 1949; ibid., Jan. 16, 1950, p. 96.