FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

Introduction:
Perpetuity is not the significance of political entities. State successions are thus common
phenomena. Difficulties may result from the change in the political sovereignty over a particular
territorial entity for the purposes of international law and the world community. International
Law therefore must address these to ensure its consequences.

Defining State Succession:

The term „state succession‟ is used to describe that branch of international law which
deals with the legal consequences of a change of sovereignty over territory. It seeks for answers
of criticality relating to that. Because, this problem is complicated because it can arise in several
different forms. It deals with the legal consequences of this matter. Because different rules of law
apply to different types of situation; for instance, the legal effects of the creation of a new state
are different from the legal effects of the enlargement of an existing state. It became a pivotal
matter after World War Two decolonization period creating more than 100 states. Similarly the
application became more important in post Cold War decolonization. For example, it seems to be
accepted that India is the same legal entity as British India and Pakistan is a totally new state
Yugoslavia was generally regarded as the successor state to Serbia, and Israel as a completely
different being from British mandated Palestine.

The conventions:
The international aspects of succession are governed through the rules of customary
international law. There are two relevant Conventions:
 The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, 1978
Entered into force: 1996
Total Article: 50
Parts: 7
Part 1. General Provisions
Part 2. Succession In Respect of Part of Territory
Part 3.Newly Independent States
Part 4. Uniting and Separation of States
Part 5.Miscellaneous Provisions
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

Part 6. Settlement of Disputes

Part 7. Final Provisions

 The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives

and Debts, 1983
Entered into force: Not Yet
Total Article: 51
Parts: 6
Part 1. General Provisions
Part 2. State Property
Part 3. State Archives
Part 4. State Debts
Part 5. Settlement of Disputes
Part 6. Final Provisions

Common article 2 contains the best understanding of this which states “State succession
itself may be briefly defined as the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for
the international relations of territory.”
So it ultimately points out 4 important implications of state succession:
 Succession to treaties
 Succession with respect to matters other than treaties (International Organizations)
 Succession to assets and debt
 State Succession and nationality
These are broadly elaborated below:

Succession to Treaties:
The rules concerning succession to treaties are those of customary international law
coded in Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, 1978, which came
into force in 1996 and which applies with regard to a succession taking place after that date. The
importance of treaties within the international legal system requires no repetition. Treaties are
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

founded upon the pre-existing and indispensable norm of pacta sunt servanda or the acceptance
of treaty commitments as binding.
Treaties may fall within the following categories:
 Territorial Treaties
 Political Treaties
 Other Treaties
In general, following that principle, according to this convention, in the standard policy
of state succession territorial treaties will be mandatory effective by default while political and
other treaties will not. In case of mutual understanding those treaties may prevail. One
consequence of this rule is that newly independent states inherited boundaries drawn by the
former colonial powers; this consequence was accepted by almost all newly independent states,
which had no wish to see their boundaries called into question. Colonial boundaries, particularly
in Africa, were often unnatural, disregarding ethnic divisions and cutting through areas which
form a natural economic unit, but, since the newly independent states could not agree on a
radical redrawing of boundaries, they were wise to avoid uncertainty and conflict by preserving
their existing boundaries.

Few Important Articles are given below:

Article 2 helps to know about few important terminologies like:

 “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the
responsibility for the international relations of territory;
 “predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the
occurrence of a succession of States;
 “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of
a succession of States;
 “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately
before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international
relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;
Article 8 of the Convention provides that such agreements of themselves cannot affect third
states and this reaffirms an accepted principle, while article 9, dealing with unilateral
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

declarations, emphasizes that such a declaration by the successor state alone cannot of itself affect the
rights and obligations of the state and third states.

Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties, although in terminology

which is cautious and negative, specifies that,
A succession of States does not as such affect:
(a) A boundary established by treaty; or
(b) Obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a
boundary.

The International Court dealt with succession to boundary treaties generally in the Libya/Chad
case, where it was declared that „once agreed, the boundary stands, for any other approach would
vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries, the importance of which has been
repeatedly emphasized by the Court‟. The treaty can cease to be in force without in any way
affecting the continuance of the boundary . . . when a boundary has been the subject of
agreement, the continued existence of that boundary is not dependent upon the continuing life of
the treaty under which the boundary is agreed.

Article 12 provides that a succession of states does not as such affect obligations or rights
relating to the use of any territory or to restrictions upon its use established by a treaty for the
benefit of any foreign state, group of states or all states and considered as attaching to the
territory in question.
However, this treaty also does cover some distinctions of territorial change. These are
given blow:

 Absorption and merger

Article 31(1) provides that where two or more states unite and form one successor state,
treaties continue in force unless the successor state and the other state party or states parties
otherwise agree or it appears that this would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the
treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation. Article 31(2) provides that such
treaties would apply only in respect of the part of the territory of the successor state in respect of
which the treaty was in force at the date of the succession of states.
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

 Cession of territory from one territory to another

According to Article 15(a) and (b),
 Treaties of the predecessor State cease to be in force in respect of the territory to which
the succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States;
 Treaties of the successor State are in force in respect of the territory to which the
succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States, unless it appears
from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty to that
territory would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would
radically change the conditions for its operation.
So it means, when part of the territory of one state becomes part of the territory of another
state, the general rule is that the treaties of the former cease to apply to the territory while the
treaties of the latter extend to the territory. This is basically consistent with state practice. When,
for example, the US annexed Hawaii in 1898, its treaties were extended to the islands and
Belgium was informed that US–Belgium commercial agreements were thenceforth to be applied
to Hawaii also. Similarly it was held that after 1919, German treaties would not apply to Alsace-
Lorraine, while French treaties would thereafter be extended to that territory.

 Secession from an existing state to form a new state or states

According to article 35: When, after separation of any part of the territory of a State, the
Predecessor State continues to exist, any treaty which at the date of the succession of States was
in force in respect of the Predecessor State continues in force in respect of its remaining territory
unless:
(a) The States concerned otherwise agree;
(b) It is established that the treaty related only to the territory which has separated from the
predecessor State; or
(c) It appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in
respect of the Predecessor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty
or would radically change the conditions for its operation.
Secession range from a break-up of a previously created entity into its previous constituent
elements, as in the 1961 dissolution of the United Arab Republic into the pre-1958 states of
Egypt and Syria or the dissolution of the Federation of Mali, to the complete fragmenting of a
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

state into a variety of successors not being coterminous with previous territorial units, such as the
demise of Austria-Hungary in 1919.When Finland seceded from the Russian Empire after the
First World War, the view taken by the UK and the US was that Finland was not bound by the
existing Russian treaties dealing with the territory. Then the breakage of Egypt and Syria from
being United Arab Republic is another notable example where Territorial Treaties remained
inviolable while Political Treaties depended on their personal decisions. In the case of
Yugoslavian Secession, the process was peaceful first then turned into Balkan wars thus the
secession turned violent. As afterwards, the name of the remaining was changed, the political
and territorial treaties were changed.

 Newly independent states

Decolonization produced a number of changes in the international legal system. Though post
World War Two was its base, Afro-Asian Decolonization of 60s and 70s played an important
role here. Their colonial legacy was a big matter. According to the convention they were not
obligated to abide by these especially through the “Clean State” principle. According to Article
16: A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any
treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force
in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates. This approach was deemed to
build upon the traditional „clean slate‟ principle applying to new states created out of existing
states, such as the United States and the Spanish American Republics when they had obtained
independence. Under Articles 17 and 24, a new state is under no obligation to succeed to a
treaty if it does not want to do so; it can start life with a „clean slate‟.

The „clean slate‟ doctrine was well established in customary international law before 1945.
This was also consistent with the view taken by the UN Secretariat in 1947 when discussing
Pakistan‟s position in relation to the organization, where it was noted that „the territory which
breaks off, Pakistan, will be a new state; it will not have the treaty rights and obligations of the
old state‟. Developments after 1945 cast some doubt on the „clean slate‟ doctrine, because some
of the states which became independent after 1945 seemed to accept that they succeeded
automatically to treaties made by their predecessor states. By reaffirming the „clean slate‟
doctrine, Articles 17 and 24 of the Vienna Convention 1978 are therefore probably in accordance
with customary law.
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

 Dissolution of states
Where an existing state comes to an end as an international person and is replaced by two or
more other states, it is accepted that political treaties will not continue but that territorially
grounded treaties will continue to attach to the territories in question now subject to new
sovereign arrangements. The situation with regard to other treaties is more uncertain. State
practice concerning dissolution has centered to all intents and purposes upon the dismemberment
of „unions of state‟, that is the ending of what had originally been a union of two international
persons. Examples would include:
 Colombia in 1829–31
 Norway/Sweden in 1905
 United Arab Republic in 1960
 Mali Federation in 1960
 Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in 1963
 Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in 1992.

Article 34 of the Vienna Convention provides for treaties in force for all or part of the
predecessor state to continue in force with regard to the specific territory unless the states
concerned otherwise agree or it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the
application of the treaty would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or
would radically change the conditions of its operation. Whether this constitutes a rule of
customary law also is unclear, but in the vast majority of situations the matter is likely to be
regulated by specific agreements. Upon the dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic, for example, on 1 January 1993, the UK took the position that, as appropriate, treaties
and agreements in force to which the UK and that state were parties remained in force as
between the UK and the successor states.

Succession with respect to matters other than treaties (International

Organizations):

After State Succession, membership of such territories to int‟l organizations is an

important matter and it varies depending on its nature. For example, In the case of the partition
of British India in 1947, India was considered by the UN General Assembly as a continuation of
the previous entity, while Pakistan was regarded as a new state, which had then to apply for
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

admission to the organization. Similarly, where the predecessor state is dissolved and new states
are created, such states will have to apply anew for membership to international organizations.
For example, the new states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted as new members
of the UN on 19 January 1993.

The Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly considered the situation of new
states being formed through division of a member state and the membership problem and
produced the following principles:
1. That, as a general rule, it is in conformity with legal principles top résumé that a state
which is a member of the Organization of the United Nations does not cease to be a member
simply because its Constitution or frontier has been subjected to changes, and that the extinction
of the state as a legal personality recognized in the international order must be shown before its
rights and obligations can be considered thereby to have ceased to exist.
2. That when a new state is created, whatever may be the territory and the populations
which it comprises and whether or not they formed part of a state member of the United Nations,
it cannot under the system of the Charter claim the status of a member of the United Nations
unless it has been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.
3. Beyond that, each case must be judged according to its merits.

Succession to Assets and Debt

The relevant international law in this area is based upon customary law. The Vienna
Convention on Succession to State Property, Archives and Debts, 1983 is not currently in force,
although most of its provisions are reflective of custom. But its many provisions are already in
affect by other sort of laws. According to those, the primary rule with regard to the allocation of
assets (including archives) and debts in succession situations is that the relevant parties should
settle such issues by agreement. By assets here it means, State Properties and State Achieves.
Private rights are also important in this notion.

 State Property:

It is fundamental that the public property of the predecessor state passes automatically to the
successor state. Public companies or public utility undertakings are the common public
properties. Article 8 of the 1983 convention states that, “State property of the Predecessor State”
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

means property, rights and interests which, at the date of the succession of States, were,
according to the internal law of the Predecessor State, owned by that State.

But one needs to distinguish here between immovable and movable property. State
immovable property situated in the territory to which the succession relates passes to the
successor state. In the case of immovable property situated outside the successor state or states,
traditional state practice posits that where the predecessor state continues in existence this
property should remain with the predecessor state.

Article 15(1)b of the Convention makes out a special, and highly controversial, case for
„newly independent states‟. This provides that „immovable property, having belonged to the
territory to which the succession of states relates, situated outside it and having become state
property of the predecessor state during the period of dependence, shall pass to the successor
state‟, while other immovable state property situated outside the territory „shall pass to the
successor state in proportion to the contribution of the dependent territory‟.In case of sharing, we
can note the example of former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, where the two successor
states agreed to divide the assets and liabilities of the predecessor state195 in the ratio of two to
one. In the case of the former Soviet Union, Russia and the successor states signed agreements in
1991 and 1992 apportioning assets and liabilities of the predecessor state with the share of
Russia being 61.34 per cent and the Ukraine being 16.37 per cent.

 State Archives:

Archives are very important part of a nation, community and its heritage of existence. To
cover it under state succession Article 20 of the 1983 Vienna Convention states that, State
archives of the predecessor State” means all documents of whatever date and kind, produced or
received by the predecessor State in the exercise of its functions which, at the date of the
succession of States, belonged to the predecessor State according to its internal law and were
preserved by it directly or under its control as archives for whatever purpose.

According to Article 23: agreed by the States concerned or decided by an appropriate

international body, the passing of State archives of the predecessor State to the successor State
shall take place without compensation. But where two or more states unite to form one successor
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

state, the state archives of the former will pass to the latter. In the case of „newly independent
states‟, the same general provisions apply. Such examples are:

 Treaty of Peace with Italy of 1947: provided that Italy was to restore all archives and
objects of historical value belonging to Ethiopia or its natives and removed from Ethiopia
to Italy since October 1935.
 Franco-Vietnamese agreement of 1950: provided for the return as of right of all historical
archives, while a dispute between France and Algeria has been in existence since the
latter‟s independence over pre-colonial material removed to France.
 Yugoslav Agreement on Succession Issues, 2001: provided that archives other than those
falling within these categories are to be the subject of an agreement between the
successor states as to their equitable distribution

 Public Debt:

Part 4 of the 1983 Vienna convention deals with this. This is a critical area of state
succession. It constitutes a particularly sensitive issue since third parties are involved who are
often reluctant to accept a change in the identity of the debtor. In this case Article 36 of the
Vienna Convention, 1983 notes, a succession of States does not as such affect the rights and
obligations of creditors.

Public debts may be divided into:

 National debts, being debts owned by the state as a whole

 Local debts, being debts contracted by a sub governmental territorial unit or other form of
local authority
 Localized debts, being debts incurred by the central government for the purpose of local
projects or areas

Local debts clearly pass under customary international law to the successor state, since they
constitute arrangements entered into by sub governmental territorial authorities now transferred
to the jurisdiction of the successor state and a succession does not directly affect them. Similarly,
localized debts, being closely attached to the territory to which the succession relates, also pass
to the successor state in conformity with the same territorial principle.
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

In the case of secession or separation where the predecessor state continues to exist, it would
appear that the responsibility for the general public debt of the predecessor state remains with the
predecessor state after the succession. Few notable examples are given below:

 When in 1921, the Irish Free State separated from the United Kingdom, it was provided
that the public debt of the UK would be apportioned „as may be fair and equitable‟,
having regard to any claims by way of set-off or counter-claim.
 The agreement between India (the continuation of British India) and Pakistan (the new
state) provided for the responsibility of the former with regard to all the financial
obligations, including loans and guarantees, of British India. India thus remained as the
sole debtor of the national debt, while Pakistan‟s share of this, as established upon the
basis of proportionality relating to its share of the assets of British India that it received,
became a debt to India.

State Succession and Nationality

According to Akehurst, a change of sovereignty over territory means that the subjects of
the predecessor state, who inhabit the territory, automatically lose their old nationality and
acquire the nationality of the successor state. Treaties sometimes allow the individuals concerned
to choose whether they want to retain their old nationality or acquire the nationality of the
successor state. It must be admitted, however, that much of the area is unclear. In 1993
therefore, the International Law Commission decided to include on its agenda the topic of state
succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons. The preliminary
conclusions of a working group submitted in 1995 start from the premise that, in situations
resulting from state succession, every person whose nationality might be affected by the change
in the international status of the territory has a right to nationality and that states have the
obligation to prevent statelessness, as the most serious potential consequence of state succession.
Other potential detrimental effects considered are dual nationality, the separation of families as a
result of the attribution of different nationalities to their members, military service obligations,
pensions and the right of residence.
In 1999, the International Law Commission adopted Draft Articles on Nationality of
Natural Persons in Relation to a Succession of States. Article 1 (defined as the „very foundation‟
FARHANA RAZZAK|| DU-IR 2013 STATE SUCCESSION

of the draft articles), reaffirming the right to a nationality, provides that individuals who on the
date of succession had the nationality of the predecessor state, irrespective of the mode of
acquisition of that nationality, have the right to the nationality of at least one of the states
concerned. Article 11 stipulates that each state concerned shall grant a right to opt for its
nationality to persons concerned who have appropriate connection with that state if those persons
would otherwise become stateless as a result of the succession of states, and that when this right
has been exercised, the state whose nationality they have opted for shall attribute its nationality
to such persons. Article 12 provides that where the acquisition or loss of nationality in relation to
the succession of states would impair the unity of a family, the states concerned shall take all
appropriate measures to allow that family to remain together or to be reunited.

The issue of state succession and nationality links together not only those two distinct
areas, but also the question of human rights. In principle, the issue of nationality will depend
upon the municipal regulations of the predecessor and successor states. The general rule would
appear to be that nationality will change with sovereignty. 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness provides that states involved in the cession of territory should ensure that no person
becomes stateless as a result of the particular change in sovereignty.

Conclusion:
The above mentioned discussion thus is an eye opener for the study of International Law
about the importance of state succession as an important field for the discipline itself and the
multidisciplinary field of International Relations also. Therefore, profound knowledge on state
succession is very significant subject matter for both.

References:
o Malanczuk, Peter; Akehurst‟s Modern Introduction To International Law; Seventh Revised
Edition; Routledge; 1997
o Shaw, Malcolm N.; International Law; Sixth Edition; Cambridge University Press; 2008
o 1983 Vienna Convention On Succession Of States In Respect Of State Property, Archives,
Debts;http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_3_1983.pdf
o 1978 Vienna Convention On Succession Of States In Respect Of Treaties;
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf