Zurück zum Heft
Cover von: Die völkerrechtliche Einordnung der Nichtanerkennung der autorisierten Zahlungsmitteleigenschaft ausländischer Münzen
Dieter Dörr, Juliane Stephan

Die völkerrechtliche Einordnung der Nichtanerkennung der autorisierten Zahlungsmitteleigenschaft ausländischer Münzen

Rubrik: Abhandlungen
Jahrgang 51 (2013) / Heft 4, S. 426-452 (27)
Publiziert 09.07.2018
DOI 10.1628/000389213X13897770189068
Veröffentlicht auf Englisch.
  • Artikel PDF
  • lieferbar
  • 10.1628/000389213X13897770189068
Aufgrund einer Systemumstellung kann es vorübergehend u.a. zu Zugriffsproblemen kommen. Wir arbeiten mit Hochdruck an einer Lösung. Wir bitten um Entschuldigung für die Umstände.
Beschreibung
The present contribution focusses on the particular question if a state's sovereignty is affected in cases, in which another state denies the currency character of coins, which were authorized before as currency by the first-mentioned state. This question was raised by a specific case that concerned coins with Liberian origin. In that case the German fiscal authorities doubted that Liberian coins, which were minted in Germany, had the function as means of payment, even though Liberia had previously declared, that the coins were recognized as official currency in Liberia. Germany based its doubts on several reasons such as the fact that Liberia itself only had a slight power of control over the minting process in Germany because of an extraordinary long license chain. The right to determine coins as means of payment lies within the scope of the monetary sovereignty of each state. Here, parallels can be drawn to the concept of nationality and the law of the sea, that both know the genuine link-doctrine. If one transfers this doctrine to the sphere of monetary law, it has to be asked if there is a sufficient relation between the coins and the coin dispensing state. In the present case there are arguments for and against the affirmation of a genuine link. The question that affiliates is if the absence of a genuine link authorizes other states to doubt the function of the coins as means of payment. With regard to the monetary sovereignty of Liberia the answer must be »no«. Namely, it arises from the principle of the sovereign equality of states that in the concrete case of monetary sovereignty states are obliged to accept the monetary law measures of other states, which are related to their currency. That also includes that states have to accept the function of the coins as means of payment, which was determined by the coin dispensing state before, regardless whether there exists a genuine link or not.