What Is State Succession under International Law

What Is State Succession under International Law

An example of partial State succession was the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan, which did not call into question Pakistan`s claim to continue to exist and retain its seat at the United Nations: it was a continuator, not a successor. Bangladesh was finally recognized as a new state: it was a successor and had to apply to become a member of the UN. 1.37 The second example is the agreement between the former republics of the USSR (with the exception of the three Baltic States and Georgia) according to which Russia is regarded in international organisations, and in particular in the UN Security Council, as a “continuator” of the international legal personality of the USSR.99 This decision has been widely accepted by other states in the international community.100 “recognition” by third countries; however, many states felt the need to communicate their positions to Russia in this regard.101 Now that we live in an organized society, an organized regime is needed to settle the political and legal situation between states. 1.03 To the author`s knowledge, the first article to fully address the specific issue of state succession in the BIT was the one I published in 2015.3 As Tams noted, “until recently, the succession of governments to investment treaties did not appear to be an issue worthy of in-depth analysis.” 4 This is indeed true. since the question had not arisen in arbitration proceedings. More specifically, as I explain in my article, the question of the continuation by the successor State of treaties to which the predecessor State acceded before the date of succession is at the centre of several cases relating to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. However, the issue has hardly been dealt with by the courts (and thus ignored at all by investment arbitration practitioners), since the respondent states in this procedure (the new Slovakia and Czech Republic) have exceeded the jurisdiction of these tribunals for BIT cases in which Czechoslovakia was involved prior to its dissolution. had raised no objections. 24 Institute of International Law, Succession of States in matters of State responsibility, 14th Committee, (Rap. M.G. Kohen), Resolution of 28 August 2015, Article 1 [`IDI`, Succession of States to responsibility, Decision 2015]. The Roman idea of succession in the event of death as a continuation of the person of the deceased by the heir was introduced into international law by Grotius, who stated: “It is indisputable that the person of the heir must be understood in the same way as the deceased person with regard to the continuation of public as well as private property.” (Lib. II., c.

9, § 12.) This view was adopted by Pufendorf and Vattel, but challenged by the commentator Coccejii, who argued that the Grotian doctrine of succession was a fiction based on a Roman private law principle which, in its entirety, was not applicable to public international law. On the views of Coccejii, see Gidel, op. cit. cit., pp. 35, 57 et seq. Among the publicists who adhere more or less strictly to the Grotian doctrine of succession are Despagnet, n° 90 ff.; Hall, 99; 2. Halleck, p. 495; 1 et seq. de Martens, § 67, p.

368 et seq.; and 1 river, 70 ff. · Given the current state of the law regarding the idea of State succession, it may well be concluded that the law needs much more development and clarity. Although it has recently become apparent that there has been some consensus at some levels and that succession does not necessarily lead to disruption in all legal practices and methods, much remains to be done in this area. 60 United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Sentencing, IUSCT Case No. B36 (574-B36–2), 3 December 1996 [53]–[54]:D Iran does not claim that this is a situation of State succession. It does not dispute that it is subject to the rights and obligations of the previous regime, as is shown by the fact that it submitted to the Court numerous claims between the former regime and the United States … Iran argues, however, that the debt under the 1948 Treaty was a personal debt of the former regime, which should be considered non-transferable by analogy, and that this position is supported by the principle of non-transferability of despicable debt, which, according to Iran, is also recognized in the area of State succession. The Court does not take a position in the doctrinal debate on the concept of “abominable debt” in international law. In any event, the Court merely finds that that concept falls within the scope of the law of succession of the State. This law does not apply to events in Iran. Revolutionary changes in Iran are a matter of state continuity, not state succession.

This statement does not preclude a realistic approach that recognizes that, in practice, the boundary between the concepts of continuity and succession is not always rigid. However, without denying the legal complexities that characterize the revolutionary and post-revolutionary situation in Iran or other countries, it must be emphasized that in this case it is not a case of state succession. Despite the change of head of state and system of government in 1979, Iran has remained the same subject of international law as before the Islamic Revolution. For when a government is overthrown by a revolution, the state remains unchanged as an international person, and the new government generally assumes all the previous international rights and obligations of the state. Israel believes that its 1948 declaration of independence has created a new international personality, that it has started from scratch and that it is bound only by previous international obligations regarding the territory that Israel might accept. [6] There are several recent examples where state succession as described above has not been fully respected. It is mainly a list of exceptions that have occurred since the founding of the United Nations in 1945. In earlier historical periods, the exceptions would be too numerous to list. Membership in an international organization has its own meaning, political visibility and diplomatic advantages. In determining whether the newly founded State is entitled to be a member of the international Organization, it is stated that the successor State must submit a new application for membership.

A good example for India and Pakistan, when Pakistan seceded from India, the UN said they had to reapply for membership. Another example, when the USSR was divided and various states emerged with Russia, there were complications as to who should be appointed as a member of the UN Security Council, finally the problem was solved by the “Almaty Declaration” and Russia got membership. There are many other historical examples of the assumption of purely local debt (see 1 Moore, pp. 339-423, 361), and it is undoubtedly an obligation under international law. Gruber, Annie. The international law of state succession. Paris: Bruylant, 1986. 35 stars (n 8) 40; Czaplinski (No. 32) 374; E. Oktem, “Turkey: successor or continuous state of the Ottoman Empire?”, (2011) 24 Leiden JIL 566. In general, Eric Wyler, “The Law of State Succession to the Test of Legal Fiction”, in G.

Distefano, G. Gaggioli und A. Hêche (Hrsg.), The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: Article-by-Article Commentary and Thematic Studies (Bruylant 2015), 1631–5. 31 Dieser Abschnitt ist eine modifizierte und aktualisierte Version eines zuvor veröffentlichten Artikels: P. Dumberry, “Is Turkey the “Continuing” State of the Ottoman Empire under International Law?” (2012) 59(2) Niederlande ILR 235–62.