## Facts

- France administered the French Zone of the Moroccan Protectorate under the 1912 Fez Treaty, while Morocco formally retained sovereign status.
- The United States claimed treaty-based rights for its nationals in Morocco under the 1836 U.S.–Morocco treaty and multilateral arrangements including the 1906 Algeciras Act.
- In December 1948, French authorities issued a residential decree imposing import licensing controls on many imports from non-French sources, while exempting imports from France.
- The dispute also concerned (1) the extent of U.S. consular jurisdiction in the French Zone, (2) whether U.S. nationals had immunity from Moroccan taxation (including 1948 consumption taxes), and (3) how to value goods for customs purposes under Article 95 of the Algeciras Act.
- France sought a declaration that its measures and regulatory authority were consistent with the applicable treaty framework; the United States asserted broader extraterritorial and immunity-based protections for its nationals.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1948 import-licensing regime, exempting French imports while restricting U.S. imports, was consistent with treaty obligations requiring economic equality or most-favoured-nation treatment.
2. What scope of consular jurisdiction the United States possessed in the French Zone under the 1836 treaty and, if applicable, the Algeciras Act.
3. Whether U.S. nationals had a general right that Moroccan laws and regulations could not be applied to them without prior U.S. assent.
4. Whether U.S. nationals were generally immune from Moroccan taxation under treaty provisions or most-favoured-nation clauses.
5. How “value” in Article 95 of the Algeciras Act should be interpreted for customs valuation.

## Decision

- The Court held the 1948 import-licensing decree incompatible with U.S. rights because it discriminated in favor of France by exempting French imports while subjecting U.S. imports to licensing control.
- The Court held the United States could exercise consular jurisdiction in the French Zone in civil and criminal disputes between U.S. citizens and U.S.-protected persons.
- The Court rejected the claim that U.S. consular jurisdiction automatically extended to all cases where the defendant was a U.S. citizen or protégé; any additional reach depended on specific Algeciras Act provisions.
- The Court rejected a general “right of assent” requiring prior U.S. consent before Moroccan laws could apply to U.S. nationals; assent was required only to the extent consular-court intervention was necessary to enforce those laws against U.S. nationals.
- The Court rejected a general fiscal immunity for U.S. nationals; they were subject to Moroccan taxes absent a specific treaty exemption.
- The Court interpreted “value” in Article 95 to mean the value of the goods at the time and place of presentation for customs clearance.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty regimes guaranteeing economic liberty and equality in trade prohibit discriminatory import controls that favor the administering power over another treaty beneficiary.
- Consular jurisdiction based on treaty text is limited to the categories and relationships expressly covered; broader extraterritorial jurisdiction is not inferred without clear legal basis.
- The applicability of local laws to foreign nationals is distinct from the mechanism for enforcing those laws where consular courts have a role; prior assent is not a general prerequisite unless enforcement requires consular-court intervention.
- Most-favoured-nation clauses and related instruments do not create blanket tax immunity absent specific language establishing an exemption.
- For customs valuation under Article 95, “value” is assessed at the time and place goods are presented for customs clearance, not by an external or fixed reference value.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the discriminatory import-licensing regime favoring France, confirmed limited U.S. consular jurisdiction grounded in treaty text (with only specified extensions under Algeciras), and rejected broad claims of prior-consent control over local legislation, general tax immunity, and a restrictive customs-valuation theory.


Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (Fr. v. U.S.), 1952 I.C.J. 176 (Aug. 27)