Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:55:46.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Succession and Problems of Treaty Interpretation *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

D. P. O’Connell
D. P. O’Connell*
Affiliation:
Professor of International Law, University of Adelaide
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is sometimes stated that the question of state succession to treaties is a question more of treaty interpretation than of the existence or otherwise of general rules of law concerning the fate of treaties upon change of sovereignty. In general terms the proposition is true: a customary rule favoring or negativing devolution would tend to be either excessively comprehensive or excessively restrictive with respect to the category of treaties whose fate is in issue. Many treaties, upon interpretation, might be found to be inapplicable under the new circumstances, while many others might be deliberately drafted in anticipation of a change of sovereignty, and might incorporate a clause providing for the solution of the problem. A study of concrete issues is thus, generally, more instructive in determining the effect of change of sovereignty upon treaties than is the enunciation of general principles of succession.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1964 , pp. 41 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Although the implications of this article are more general, the specific problems of interpretation discussed are those which arise in connection with the independence of states which were formerly dependent territories of the United Kingdom or British Dominions.

References

1 Treaty of Bangkok, Cmd. 5731, 141 Brit, and For. State Papers 406; 188 L.N. Treaty Series 333.

2 By exchange of notes dated Dee. 28 and 31, 1948, India and Thailand agreed to apply this treaty pending the conclusion of a treaty between Thailand and India. The Indian note in reply contemplates a more formalized exchange of notes, but none was actually completed, owing perhaps to the formal agreement between Thailand on the one part and the United Kingdom and India on the other, dated Jan. 2, 1946, which renders a further agreement unnecessary.

A new commercial treaty was signed with Pakistan at Bangkok on Aug. 28, 1958, ratified at Karachi on Dec. 9, 1957. It is not regarded as a replacement for the treaty of 1937, which Thailand has never regarded as affecting Pakistan.

3 The problem of the treaty of 1937 vis-à-vis India and Pakistan, is that the majority of Indian denizens were not “His Majesty’s subjects,” but British-protected persons. To translate His Majesty’s subjects as Indian or Pakistani citizens would be to include millions of people to whom the treaty never applied.

4 44 & 45 Viet., c. 69.

5 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 46.

6 Madras U. Menon, A.I.R., 1954, S. Ct., 517; 1954 Int. Law Rep. 46.

7 Ibid.

8 In re Government of India and Mubarak Ali Ahmed, [1952] 1 All E.R. 1060.

9 E. M. Bhaba v. The Crown, (1954) 2 All Pakistan Legal Decisions, Sind, 101.

10 R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Otchere, The Times, Oct. 11, 1962.

11 Zacharia v. Republic of Cyprus, [1962] 2 All E.R. 438.

12 R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Enahoro, [1963] 2 All E.R. 477.

13 R. v. Bradley (unreported).

14 Blackwood & Sons v. Parasuraman, A.I.R., 1959, Madras, 410.

15 52 & 53 Vict., c. 63, s. 18 (2).

16 5 Halsbury 433.

17 5 Hackworth 272.

18 Italian Peace Treaty, 1947, Art. 82 (1) (a); Versailles Peace Treaty, Art. 267; Treaty between Argentina and Spain, 1863; Peace Treaty of Frankfort, 1871, Art. 11.

19 Basdevant, “Clause de la nation la plus favorisée, “3 Bépertoire de Droit International 481 et seq. (1929); McNair, The Law of Treaties 505 (1962).

20 99 Brit, and For. State Papers 141.

21 R. Binz, Staatensukzession und Meistbegünstigung (unpublished dissertation, Munich, 1961).

22 Völkerrecht als System rechtlich bedeutsamer Staatsakte 263 (1923).

23 Cf. Huber, Die Staatensukzession 43 (1898); Schönborn, Staatensukzessionen 42 (1913).

24 2 Hold-Ferneck, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts 116 (1932).

25 Cmd. 5731; 141 Brit, and For. State Papers 406; 188 L. N. Treaty Series 333.

26 1 Brit, and For. State Papers 691.

27 Ibid. 701.

28 13 ibid. 3, Art. 1. The Anglo-Swedish treaty of 1826 uses the same formula, ibid. 12.

29 36 ibid. 394, Art. 1.

30 Art. 4.

31 37 ibid. 20, Arts. 1, 4. Arts. 5, 6, and 7 were denounced by Costa Rica in 1897: 20 Hertslet 244.

32 38 Brit, and For. State Papers 20, Art. 3. The treaty has been interpreted as benefiting all British Dominions, but as not requiring them to accord privileges to Peru.

33 46 ibid. 176, Art. 1.

34 47 ibid. 42, Art. 9.

35 Switzerland, 1855, 45 ibid. 21, Art. 6; Colombia, 1866, 56 ibid. 13, Art. 4.

36 E.g., Portugal, 1914, 108 ibid. 369, Cd. 8402, Art. 5; Bolivia, 1911, 104 ibid. 132, Cd. 6267, Art. 5; Lithuania, 1922, 116 ibid. 500, Art, 1; 24 L. N. Treaty Series 174. Cmd. 1711.

37 Cmd. 5731; 188 L. N. Treaty Series 333 ; 141 Brit, and For. State Papers 406.

38 E.g., Germany, 1924, 119 Brit, and For. State Papers 369; Cmd. 2520, Arts. 31, 32.

39 E.g., Brazil, 1931.

40 E.g., Portugal, 1914, 108 Brit, and For. State Papers 369; Cd. 8402, Art. 21; Bolivia, 1911, 104 Brit, and For. State Papers 132; Cd. 6267, Art. 15; Austria, 1924, 119 Brit, and For. State Papers 328; Cmd. 2411; 35 L. N. Treaty Series 175, Arts. 24, 25; Bulgaria, 121 Brit, and For. State Papers 750; Cmd. 2556; 43 L. N. Treaty Series 165; Czechoslovakia, 1923, 117 Brit, and For. State Papers 254; Cmd. 2254; 29 L. N. Treaty Series 378, Arts. 9, 10; Estonia, 1926, 123 Brit, and For. State Papers 483; Cmd. 2709; 48 L. N. Treaty Series 209, Arts. 28, 29; Finland, 1923, 117 Brit. and For. State Papers 282; Cmd. 2243; 29 L. N. Treaty Series 130, Arts. 23, 24; Guatemala, 1928, 128 Brit, and For. State Papers 309; Cmd. 3429; 97 L. N. Treaty Series 229, Art. 13; Latvia, 1923, 117 Brit, and For. State Papers 326; Cmd. 1995; 20 L. N. Treaty Series 395, Arts. 26, 27, Lithuania, 1922, 116 Brit, and For. State Papers 500; Cmd. 1711; 13 L. N. Treaty Series 25; Panama, 1928, 128 Brit, and For. State Papers 326; Cmd. 3322; 90 L. N. Treaty Series 311, Art. 12; Boumania, 132 Brit, and For. State Papers 309; Cmd. 3945; 123 L. N. Treaty Series 307, Art. 36; Spain, 1922, 117 Brit, and For. State Papers 353; Cmd. 2188; 28 L. N. Treaty Series 339, Arts. 5, 6, 24, as notified in 1927, 176 Brit, and For. State Papers 297; Cmd. 2855; 63 L. N. Treaty Series 189 and 192; 128 Brit, and For. State Papers 347; Cmd. 3074; 78 L. N. Treaty Series 457; Thailand, 1937, Cmd. 5731; 188 L. N. Treaty Series 333, Art. 25; Yugoslavia, 126 Brit, and For. State Papers 276; Cmd. 3065; 80 L. N. Treaty Series 165, Arts. 30, 31.

41 See notes 26 and 27 above.

42 1 Brit, and For. State Papers 696; 27 Hertslet 1062.

43 Cmd. 5731; 141 Brit, and For. State Papers 406; 188 L. N. Treaty Series 333.

44 134 Brit, and For. State Papers 224; Cmd. 4002, Art. 3. In the same year the Canadian-Brazilian Commercial Agreement expressly reserved Commonwealth preference. Canadian Treaty Series, No. 6 (1931); 134 Brit, and For. State Papers 459; Cmd. 4250. This was adopted in the Brazilian-Indian treaty of 1931, Cmd. 4168.

45 Cmd. 4472.

46 The exception of Commonwealth preference from most-favored-foreign-nation treatment first appears in a United Kingdom treaty with Finland in 1933 (Cmd. 4472), although earlier examples are to be found in the Brazilian, agreements with Canada in 1931 (Cmd. 4250) and with India in 1932 (Cmd. 4168).

Other United Kingdom trade agreements incorporating this express reservation are with the following countries: U.S.S.B. (1934, Cmd. 4567), Lithuania (1934, Cmd. 4680), Brazil (1936, Cmd. 5267), Cuha (1938, Cmd, 5867), Thailand (1938, Cmd, 5731), U. S. A. (1938, Cmd. 6158), Denmark (1950, Cmd. 7986) and Norway (1950, Cmd. 8363).

No express reservation, or definition of the word “foreign” as used in the expression “most-favored foreign country” appear in the following United Kingdom agreements: Iceland (1933, Cmd. 4331), Sweden (1933, Cmd. 4421), Denmark (1933, Cmd. 4424), Chile (1937, Cmd. 5650), Chile (1938, Cmd. 5972), Salvador (1945, Cmd. 6816) and Chile (1947, Cmd. 7178). Presumably, the contracting parties in these cases did not deem it necessary that the understanding be made explicit in the agreements.

47 33 & 34 Viet. c. 52.

48 Sec. 2.

49 1950 Int. Law Rep., Case No. 21.

50 163 L. N. Treaty Series 59; 135 Brit, and For. State Papers 323; Cmd. 4928; 47 Stat. 2122.

51 287 U. N. Treaty Series 234; Cmnd. 345. The analysis of the three treaties in this section was made by Mr. I. Shearer in the course of preparation of an article to be published in the Revue générale de droit international public, and is included here with his consent. Mr. Shearer is Lecturer in Law in the University of Adelaide.

52 Treaties in Force, 1962.

53 3 U. N. Treaty Series 253; 147 Brit, and For. State Papers 1111; Cmd. 6747; 60 Stat. 1499; T.I.A.S., No. 1507.

54 80 U. N. Treaty Series 261; 156 Brit, and For. State Papers 784; Cmd. 7894; U. S. Treaty Series 126; T.I.A.S., No. 2017.

55 22 U. N. Treaty Series 263; 151 Brit, and For. State Papers 149 ; Cmd. 7469 ; 62 Stat. 2596; T.I.A.S., No. 1795.

56 Sobhuza II v. Millar, [1926] A.C. 518, held that inhabitants of protectorates are not British subjects. The British Protected Persons Order-in-Council, 1934 S.R. & O. No. 499, provided that the residents of the scheduled territories have the status of “British protected” persons. The protectorates mentioned above are scheduled territories. Inhabitants of Trust Territories likewise are not British subjects, but have status equivalent to that of British protected persons: R. U. Ketter, [1940] 1 K.B. 787; Wong Man On v. The Commonwealth, (1952) 86 C.L.R. 125.

57 10 & 11 Eliz. 2, c. 57.

58 10 Eliz. 2, c. 1.

59 Sec. 1.

60 C. 7588; 19 Hertslet 691.

61 24 Hertslet 694.

62 British Nationality Act, 1948. See Wilson, R. R. and Clute, E. E., “Commonwealth Citizenship and Common Status,” 57 A.J.I.L. 566 (1963)Google Scholar.

63 105 Brit, and For. State Papers 266; Cd. 6523.