Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:50:53.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State Succession and State Reponsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Wladyslaw Czaplinski
Wladyslaw Czaplinski*
Affiliation:
West Institute, Poznan, Poland
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments / Notes et commentaries
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 28 , 1991 , pp. 339 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1991

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.)

References

1 [1971] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Part 1, 214.

2 Cf., e.g., Quadri, R., “Cours général de droit international public,” 113 Recueil des Cours 458-5A (1964) (hereafter RCADI);Google Scholar Brownlie, I., System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility, Part One, 37 (Oxford, 1983).Google Scholar

3 Doc. A/Conf.80/31 and A/Conf. 117/14. Neither convention has entered into force yet, and in light of the past experience their imporance seems very limited. However, the definition of state succession adopted in them is the most general and non-controversial, in comparison with doctrinal cases.

4 Hurst, C., “State Succession in Matters of Tort,” 5 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 163, 166–67 (1924).Google Scholar For the opposite view, see O’Connell, D. P., State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Vol. 1, at 483 (Cambridge, 1967).Google Scholar

5 Quoted by Whiteman, M., 2 Digest of International Law 875 (Washington, 1963).Google Scholar

6 The Award of Nov. 23, 1923, 6 UNRIAA 120; [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 144; 2 Annual Digest (hereafter AD) (1923–24), No. 35.

7 The award of Nov. 10, 1925, 6 UNRIAA 157; [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 144; 3 AD (1925–26), No. 59.

8 12 UNRIAA 190.

9 Monnier, J., “La succession d’États en matière de responsabilité internationale,” Annuaire français de droit international, 1962, at 88.Google Scholar

10 Sumos (Liability for Torts) case, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 36.

11 Sechter v. Ministry of Interior case, 5 AD (1929–30), No. 37.

12 Functional Succession case, Bundesgerichtshof, July 9, 1953, in 20 ILR 79 (1953). Unterstützungsanstalt “Zur Humanität,” Freimauerloge zum Brunnen des Heils e., V. Heilbronn v. Land Baden-Württemberg, Supreme Restitutional Court, Feb. 27, 1958, in 26 ILR 89.

13 Personal Injuries (Upper Silesia) case, 18 ILR 67 (1951), No. 29.

14 Maeyens v. FRG, Mar. 13, 1959, in 28 ILR 571 (1963).

15 District Court of The Hague, Jan. 12, 1953, in 20 ILR 80 (1953).

16 Algiers Land and Warehouse Co. Ltd., Conseil d’État, July 13, 1967, in 48 ILR 58 (1975); Benejam case, Conseil d’État, Nov. 6, 1968, in 72 ILR 267 (1987); Agent judiciaire du Trésor v. Humbert, 74 ILR 97 (1987).

17 Railway Pension (Austria) case, 2 AD 1923–24, No. 34; [1983] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 142.

18 Rainoldi v. Ministro della Guerra, 13 ILR 8 (1946).

19 Olpinski v. Polish Treasury (Railway Division); 1 AD (1919–22), No. 36; Nierniec and Nierniec v. Bialobrodziec and (Polish) State Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 33; Dzierzbicki v. District Electric Association of Czestochowa, 7 AD (1933–34), No. 38.

20 Baron A. v. Prussian Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 30.

21 Tanganyika Succession case, 1 AD(1919–22), No. 31; S. Th. v. German Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 29.

22 Kalmar v. Hungarian Treasury, 5 AD (1929–30), No. 36; [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 142.

23 Mordcovici v. General Administration of Posts and Telegraphs, 2 AD (1929–30), No. 38; [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 143.

24 Supra note 11.

25 Kishangar Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. United State of Rajasthan, High Court of Rajasthan, May 5, 1959, in 49 ILR 365 (1976).

26 21 ILR 5 (1954).

27 État Belge v. Dumont, Pittacos v. État Belge, May 26, 1966, in 48 ILR 8 (1975).

28 [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Pt. 2, at 282 and 287.

29 [1968] ι Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 103 (F. Albonico), no (E. Ustor), and 127 (Α. Η. Tabibi).

30 The problem of succession in respect of delictual responsibility was dealt with briefly during the 1421th Meeting of the ILC on May 17, 1977 ([1977] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 27). During discussion on the concept of a localized debt, M. Bedjaoui quoted delictual obligations as examples of this kind of debt; he rejected the transfer of such obligations because of the difficulties connected with attribution of the act.

31 [1979] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Pt. 2, at 45.

32 Fourth Report on State Responsibility, by R. Ago, [1972] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 130ff

33 Cf. Marek, K., Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law 38–41 (Geneva, 1968),Google Scholar and recently Atlam, H., “National Liberation Movements and International Responsibility,” in Simma, B. and Spinedi, M. (eds.), UN Codification on State Responsibility 35 (New York/London/Rome, 1987).Google Scholar

34 See the critical remarks by I. Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 2, at 178.

35 Supra note 31, at 104.

36 Udina, M., “La succession d’e’tats aux obligations internationales autres que les dettes publiques,” 44 RCADI 767 (1983);Google Scholar J. Monnier, supra note 9, at 86.

37 Dinh, Nguyen Quoc, Daillier, P., Pellet, A., Droit international public 490 (Paris, 1987).Google Scholar

38 C. Hurst, supra note 4 at 178; Brownlie, I., The Principles of Public International Law 644 (Oxford, 1973);Google Scholar Verdross, A./Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht 500 (Berlin, 1976);Google Scholar Wengler, W., Völkerrecht, Vol. 1, at 603–4 (Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg).Google Scholar

39 Cavare, L., Le droit international positif, Vol. 1, at 416 (Paris, 1967).Google Scholar

40 Rousseau, Ch., Droit international public, Vol. 3, at 505 (Paris, 1977).Google Scholar

41 Guggenheim, P., Traité de droit international public, Vol. 1, at 474 (Geneva, 1953);Google Scholar K. Marek, op. cit. supra note 33, at 10–11; Schwarzenberger, G., A Manual of International Law 88 (London, 1967).Google Scholar

42 Feilchenfeld, E. H., Public Debts and State Succession 690 (New York, 1931).Google Scholar

43 D. P. O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 4, at 487; Oppenheim, F./Lauterpacht, H., International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1, at 162 (London, 1955);Google Scholar Henkin, L., Pugh, R., Schachter, O., Smit, H., International Law: Cases and Materials 783 (St. Paul, Minn., 1980).Google Scholar

44 O’Connell, D. P., “Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States,” 162–65 RCADI 130 (1970).Google Scholar

45 Verzijl, J. H. W., “Droit de la mer at la succession d’e’tats,” in Hommage d’une génération de juristes au Président Basdevant 523–25 (Paris, 1960).Google Scholar

46 Ronzitti, N., La successione internazionale tra stati I 220–22 (Milano, 1970).Google Scholar

47 Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, (Third), Vol. 1, at 105 (St. Paul, Minn., 1987).

48 Jennings, R. Y., “General Course of Principles of International Law,” 121 RCADI 602 (1967).Google Scholar

49 Judgment of Feb. 28, 1939, PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 76.

50 A. Verdross/B. Simma, op. cit. supra note 38, at 501; J. Monnier, op. cit. supra note 9, at 70; P. Guggenheim, op. cit. supra note 41, at 474; R. Y. Jennings, op. cit. supra note 48, at 473; W. Wengler, op. cit. supra note 38, at 602.

51 3 UNRIAA 1484.

52 O’Connell, D. P., “Independence and Problems of State Succession,” in O’Brien, W. (ed.), The New Nations in International Law and Diplomacy 31 (London, 1965);Google Scholar see also the Indian author, Hingorani, R. C., Modern International Law 98 (Dobbs Ferry, NY, 1979)Google Scholar (but referring to the R. Brown and Hawaiian Claims cases).

53 See, e.g., Okoye, F., International Law and the New African States 178ff. (London, 1972).Google Scholar

54 As to the position of the Austrian delegation during the Paris Peace Conference and the opinions expressed by H. Kelsen and A. Verdross, see K. Marek, op. cit. supra note 33, at 23. Compare also Cansacchi, G., “Identité et continuité des sujets internationaux,” 130 RCADI 34–35 (1970).Google Scholar It should be noted that the Four Powers considered the problem of transfer of responsibility for war to the successor states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia) in order to recover the costs of war but that finally the idea was rejected. The successor’s payments were treated as “costs of liberation,” not as reparations.