Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:30:51.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Succession to Treaties in New States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Okon Udokang
Get access

Extract

For our present purpose it is useful to divide the Commonwealth countries into two categories according to the circumstances under which they achieved international recognition as subjects of international law: first, the older Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Irish Free State and South Africa which acquired international identity through a gradual process of constitutional transition from Crown colony systems to responsible governments; and, second, the colonial territories that have become independent states since 1945.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 8 , 1970 , pp. 123 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 1970 

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 Stewart, R.B., Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth 133 et. seq. (1939).Google Scholar

2 O’Connell, D.P., “Independence and Succession to Treaties,” 38 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 92 (1962).Google Scholar The typical form of international agreements concluded in the name of the colonies was the inter-governmental or inter-departmental form. Many of the postal conventions concluded by the colonial representatives, or with the consent of the local colonial administration, were of this form, and, it should be added, the signatory in each case was usually the appropriate postal authority. For examples, see the agreements between the United States and New South Wales (1874) and Queensland (1876), Hertslet, , Commercial Treaties, Vol. 14, at 1234,Google Scholar and Vol. 15, at 460 respectively; in 1890, New Zealand separately signed the convention establishing the Union for the publication of Customs Tariffs (now the International Convention for the Simplification of Customs Formalities, acceded to by N.Z. in 1924). For subsequent practice, see Barbados (1923), 20 L.N.T.S. 415; Federated Malay States (1924), 23 L.N.T.S. 209.

3 Stewart, op. cit. supra note 1, at 368; McNair, , The Law of Treaties 113–14 (1961).Google Scholar

4 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings. Report of Inter-Imperial Relations Committee, Cmd. 2768, at 14 (1926).

5 Imperial Conference, 1937, Ollivier, , Colonial and Imperial Conferences, Vol. 3, Part II, at 427.Google Scholar

6 See, for example, Moore, , “The Dominions and Treaties,” 8 J. Comp. Leg. & Int’l L. 21–32 (1926);Google Scholar Johnston, , “Dominion Status in International Law,” 21 Am. J. Int’l L. 481–85 (1927);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Thorson, , “The British Commonwealth of Nations,” 7 Can. Bar Rev. 96–100 (1929);Google Scholar Phillips, , “The Dominions and the United Kingdom,” 4 Camb. L.J. 164 et. seq. (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Scott, , “The End of Dominion Status,” 38 Am. J. Int’l L. 34–47 (1944);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Corbett, , “The Status of the British Commonwealth in International Law,” 3 U. of T. L. J. 348–54 (1940);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dunn, , “The New International Status of the British Dominions,” 13 Va. L. Rev. 354–73 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Parliamentary Papers, Vol. 55, at 483.

9 Cf. the Canadian government’s negotiation of a treaty with the U.S. in 1922 in regard to the Halibut Fisheries. Its right of separate negotiation was questioned by the U.K. government, which believed that full powers should be given to His Majesty’s Ambassador in Washington, together with the Canadian representative, to conclude the treaty. Canada hesitated on the ground that the treaty was of interest solely to Canada and the U.S., whereupon the U.K. agreed.

10 Ghosh, R. C., Treaties and Federal Constitutions, Their Mutual Impact 16–21 (1961);Google Scholar Schachter, , “The Development of International Law through the Legal Opinions of the United Nations Secretariat,” 25 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 91–102 (1948).Google Scholar

11 McNair, , Law of Treaties 641 (1961).Google Scholar

12 Sen, Sirdar D.K., “The Partition of India and Succession in International Law,” 1 Indian L. Rev. 190–200 (1947);Google Scholar Jones, Mervyn, “State Succession in the Matter of Treaties,” 26 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 360 (1947);Google Scholar Ghosh, op. cit. supra note 10, at 20–21.

13 Miller, D.H., The Drafting of the Covenant, Vol. 5, at 1636.Google Scholar

14 1 L.N.T.S. 288.

15 60 L.N.T.S. 253; B.T.S., 1927, No. 16; Cmd. 2910; 134 Brit. & For. State Papers 355.

16 94 L.N.T.S. 57; 128 Brit. & For. State Papers 447; U.S.T.S. No. 796 (1929).

17 184 L.N.T.S. 115; 140 Brit. & For. State Papers 243; Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 7, at 263.Google Scholar

18 International Law Association, The Effect of Independence on Treaties 35 (1965).

19 Indian Independence Act (1947), 10 and 11 Geo. VI, c. 30.

20 Partition Proceedings, Vol. 3, Annexure V, at 217–76.

21 O’Connell, , State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Vol. 2, at 127 (1967).Google Scholar

22 Gazette of India Extraordinary, August 14, 1947.

23 See U.N. Press Release PM/473; Doc. A/CN. 4/149; [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 101.

24 Lok Sabha Debates, 12th Sess., 1956, App. 4, Annex. No. 42.

25 21 Int’l L. Rep. 46 (1954).

26 20 Int’l L. Rep. 41 (1953).

27 [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 7.

28 McNair, , The Law of Treaties 115 (1961).Google Scholar

29 Cmnd. 368, at 34; U.N. Doc. A/GN.4/150, at 9.

30 Barias Brothers (Karachi) & Co. v. Yangtze (London) Ltd., Pakistan Legal Decisions 423 (1959). This judgment was upheld on appeal to the Pakistan Supreme Court, ibid., Vol. II, at 573 (1961).

31 Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 3, at 2245.Google Scholar

32 Supra note 22.

33 12 and 13 Geo. V, c. 4.

34 Article 18 of the Covenant provides: “Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered.”

35 27 L.N.T.S. 449.

36 Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1920).

37 26 L.N.T.S. 10.

38 O’Connell, , “The Crown in the British Commonwealth,” 6 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 103–19 (1957);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jennings, R. Y., “The Commonwealth and International Law,” 30 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 320–51 (1953);Google Scholar Hackworth, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, 369–70.Google Scholar

39 Law Officers’ Opinion to the Colonial Office, December 2, 1907; McNair, , Law of Treaties 646 (1961).Google Scholar

40 McNair, op. cit. supra, 640; Hackworth, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, at 369; O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, at 123.Google Scholar

41 For the statement of the Prime Minister of Ireland in the Dail (Parliament) in 1933 on this question, see McNair, op. cit. supra note 39, at 641.

42 Ibid., 115.

43 Ibid.; Fawcett, , The British Commonwealth in International Law 144–94 (1963).Google Scholar

44 For example, the great majority of the treaty obligations of Australia and New Zealand appear to be agreements signed by the U.K., which applied to these territories. See Australian and New Zealand Treaty Lists. In 1947, on achievement of independence, India was presented with a list of 627 treaties concluded on behalf of her by Britain: see Partition Proceedings (1947), Vol. 3, Ann. V, at 217-76; also Jenks, C. W., “State Succession in respect of Law-making Treaties,” 29 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 130 (1952).Google Scholar

45 Parliamentary Papers, Vol. 55, at 483.

46 Lester, , “State Succession to Treaties in the Commonwealth,” 12 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 487 (1963).Google Scholar

47 See, for example, Dunn, , “The New International Status of the British Dominions,” 13 Va. L. Rev. 354 et seq. (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Corbett, supra note 7; Scott, supra note 7.

48 O’Connell, supra note 2, at 94.

50 Ibid., 88–89.

51 Cf. the Law Officers’ Opinions with regard to (1) the new states of Latin America; (2) Belgium after her independence in 1830; (3) Poland after 1919; (4) Finland after 1919; (5) Panama on its independence in 1903. See McNair, , The Law of Treaties 601–05 (1961).Google Scholar

52 Cf. the Imperial Preference System. In 1897 Britain denounced her commercial treaties of 1862 with Belgium and 1865 with the North German Confederation in compliance with Canada’s suggestion that a Commonwealth Preferential system be created.

53 Mervyn Jones, supra note 12, at 367.

54 27 L.N.T.S. 449 (1924). Even English courts did not concede that the Irish Free State was truly a new state: see Murray v. Parkes, [1942] 2 K.B. 123.

55 132 L.N.T.S. 366; Cmd. No. 3797, Article 8.

56 U.K.T.S., No. 15, (1931); Cmd. 3797.

57 U.K.T.S., Vol. 6, at 144; Cmd. 6916.

58 U.N.T.S., Vol. 70, at 184; Cmd. 7360.

59 U.N.T.S., Vol. 86, at 28; Cmd. 7257.

60 For example, Malaya (Cmnd. 346); Cyprus (Cmnd. 1252); Nigeria (Cmnd. 1214); Sierra Leone (Cmnd. 1464); for analysis of the agreements affecting Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia, see Green, “Malaya/Singapore/ Malaysia: Comments on State Competence, Succession and Continuity,” 4 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3, 21 et. seq. (1966).

61 Cmnd. No. 345; 387 U.N.T.S. 233.

62 O’Connell, supra note 2, at 120; O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, at 360.

63 Lester, supra note 46, at 503.

64 Treaties in Force (U.S. State Dept. Publication) where treaties are listed against new states parties to inheritance agreements as indicative of the affirmative attitude of those states towards novation.

65 See, for example, the Secretary-General’s policy statement in Summary of the Practice of the Secretary-Géneral as Depositary of Multilateral Agreements, ST/LEG/7, at 61 (August 7, 1959).

66 De Muralt, , The Problem of State Succession with Regard to Treaties 40 (1954).Google Scholar

67 Lester, supra note 46, at 506.

68 De Muralt, op. cit. supra note 66.

69 Harvard Research in International Law, Law of Treaties, 29 Am. J. Int’l L., Suppl., 653, at 1096–97 (1935); Lissitzyn, , “Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus sic Stantibus),” 61 Am. J. Int’l L. 896–97 (1967);CrossRefGoogle Scholar McNair, , The Law of Treaties 436–57 (1961);Google Scholar [1963] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 136–58; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 59, U.N. Doc. A/Conf.39/11, at 365–82 (March 26-May 24, 1968).

70 Holloway, Modern Trends in Treaty Law 238–49 (1967); see also pp. 151–237.

71 Whiteman, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, at 956.Google Scholar

72 Constitution of July 1, 1960, Art. 67, in Peaslee, A. J., Constitutions of Nations, Vol. 1, 791 (rev. 3rd ed. 1965).Google Scholar

73 Cmd. 3797; U.K.T.S. No. 15 (1931), Article 8.

74 Cmd. 6916; 6 U.N.T.S. 144.

75 See works by O’Connell cited above.

76 O’Connell, supra note 2, at 123.

77 Cmnd. No. 1214.

78 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/150, at 34.

79 Nigeria Government Notice No. 1881, Official Gazette, September, 1965, Vol. 52, No. 77, at 1600.

80 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/150, at 18.

81 Ibid., 19–20.

82 Ibid., 41.

83 I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Vol. XL, No. 8, at 373 (1957).

84 Ibid., 442.

85 Ibid., Vol XLIII, No. 7, at 522–23 (1960).

86 Ibid., 524.

87 See Tabata, S., “The Independence of Singapore and her Succession to the Agreement between Japan and Malaysia for Air Services,” 12 Jap. Ann. Int’l L. 36–44 (1968).Google Scholar

88 For a detailed discussion of this subject and legal problems raised, see Green, supra note 60, at 37–42.

89 Independence of Singapore Agreement, Singapore Govt. Gazette, Vol. 7, No. 66, August 9, 1965.

90 2 Int’l Legal Materials 817 (1963); 4 Int’l Legal Materials 938 (1965).

91 For full text of statement, see 11 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 1210-14 (1962).

92 Reprinted in Whiteman, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, at 1000–01.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., 1001.

94 Supra note 18, at 386–87.

95 International Law Association Conference (Buenos Aires, 1968), Interim Report of the Committee on State Succession 16–17.

96 O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, at 116.

97 Ibid., 117–21.

98 France-Cambodia Agreement, August 29 and September 9, 1953: Journal Officiel, May 3, 1959.

99 Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation, signed at Paris, October 22, 1953: Documentation Française (December 5, 1953) No. 1811.

100 Treaty of Independence, Art. 2, June 4, 1954: Documentation Francaise (June 15, 1954) No. 067.

101 Diplomatic Convention Between France and Morocco, May 20, 1956: Documentation Francaise (1956), Nos. 0328 and 0363; 2 Annuaire Français de droit international 133 (1956).

102 [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 11; De Muralt, op. cit. supra note 66, at 129–30; Whiteman, , Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, at 976–77.Google Scholar

103 Whiteman, op. cit. supra, 984.

104 [1961] I.C.J. Rep. 17; 2 Temple of Preah Vihear Case —I.G.J. Pleadings 71–73 (1962).

105 U.N. Status of Multilateral Conventions, ST/LEG/3; see Morocco’s declaration in respect of certain conventions which had been applied in its territory in Practice of the Secretary-General as Depositary of Multilateral Agreements, ST/LEG/7.

106 U.N. Status of Multilateral Conventions, ST/LEG/3.

107 O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, at 145.

108 Ibid.

109 Robinson, K., “Constitutional Reform in French Tropical Africa,” Political Studies, No. 1, at 47–69 (1958).Google Scholar

110 Gonidec, P.F., “La Communaute,” Public Law 178 (Summer, 1960).Google Scholar

111 Ibid., 179.

112 Member states of the Community were Senegal, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Upper Volta, Niger, Sudan, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Gabon, Ubangui Chari (Central African Republic) and Madagascar (now Malagasy Republic). The smaller territories which decided to maintain their status as Overseas Territories comprise French Somaliland, the Comoro archipelago, St. Pierre-et-Miquelon, French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

113 Article 78 of the French Constitution (1958).

114 Articles 85 and 86, ibid.

115 These consist of Central African Republic, Congo B., Chad, Gabon and the Malagasy Republic: Journal Officiel, July 30, 1960.

116 They include Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Dahomey and Niger: Journal Officiel, July 27, 1961; Mauritania: ibid., August 4, 1961.

117 2 Whiteman, , Digest of International Law 976 (1963).Google Scholar

118 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/150, at 25.

119 U.S. Dept. of State, Treaties in Force, January 1, 1966, at 43.

120 Ibid., January 1, 1964, at 24.

121 See Gautron, , “Sur quelques aspects de la succession d’états au Sénégal,” 8 Annuaire Francaise de droit international 836 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122 However, see her declaration acceding to membership of the I.L.O.: I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Vol. XLIII, No. 7, at 256–57 (1960). She accepted the validity of 13 of the I.L.O. Conventions.

123 Supra note 119, at 27.

124 U.N. DOC. A/CN. 4/150, para 63.

125 O’Connell, supra note 2, at 109.

126 O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, Vol. I, at 75.

127 Supra note 123.

128 Supra note 121.

129 Cf. practice of Congo (Β.), Senegal and Mali in respect to I.L.O. Conventions; for succession to treaties of which the U.N. is depositary, see ST/ LEG/3; ST/LEG/7; see also U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/150.

130 Yet it has, in practice, claimed the validity of certain conventions concluded by France. See, for example, I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Vol. XLV, No. 4, at 262 (1962). Cf. U.N. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 17th Sess., 6th Comm., 742nd Mtg. 40, para. 14 (1962).

131 See, for example, Doc. A/CN.4/150, at 38; I.L.O. Official Bulletin, Vol. XLIII, No. 7, at 532 (1960).

132 “… evident moral and sociological pressures emphasize the need for continuity and the avoidance of disruption, while theory remains enmeshed in the nineteenth-century conception of sovereign will.… The solution lies in a presumption of continuity which concrete analysis may rebut… “: O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, Vol. I, at 34–35.

133 Ibid., Vol. II, at 140.

134 See, for example, Herz, John H., Political Realism and Political Idealism 18 et seq. (1951);Google Scholar Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations 281 et. seq. (3rd ed., 1960);Google Scholar Kennan, George, American Diplomacy, 1900–1950, at 95 (1951).Google Scholar For an exciting study of how the principle of realism operates in the practice of states, see Corbett, Percy, Law in Diplomacy (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135 Thus Charles de Visscher urges that “The hour is not one for doctrinal generalizations moving in the rhythm of a transcendental logic, or for brilliant systematizations in which intellectual ingenuity often counts for more than respect for the facts. It is rather one that challenges us to recognize the limits which in our day the dependence of international law on the historical forms of power distribution sets to its effectiveness. … Every renewed recognition of the foundations of power stimulates a renewal of values; every return to the realities holds promise of effectiveness”: Theory and Reality in Public International Law 365 (1957).

136 Kaplan, and Katzenbach, deB., The Political Foundations of International Law 8 et. seq. (1961).Google Scholar

137 Professor Percy E. Corbett in his fascinating study of the practices of Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union comes to the conclusion that “The enthusiasm reserved by Soviet jurists for the Socialist importations into the body of international rules, and their constant denunciation of any legal propositions tending to limit Socialist sovereignty, reveal the essential rejection of world community under a legal system not wholly of their own making. But in the democracies also the notion of national interest still outweighs the claims of a world community subject to law. In matters that concern them deeply, though law is still invoked, the specific rule always supports the national case, and no authority is permitted to gainsay the national interpretation. In these circumstances, with political considerations dictating the content of the rule, it becomes clear that law is being made a tool of policy and the notion of an objectively binding system abandoned in practice”: Law in Diplomacy 107 (1959) (italics added).

138 Cf. Prime Minister (President) Nyerere’s speech to the Tanganyika National Assembly on Tanganyika’s policy in respect of succession to previous British treaties: it Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 1210–14 (1962).

139 O’Connell, , “The Crown in the British Commonwealth,” 6 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 116–18 (1957).Google Scholar

140 Fawcett, , The Inter Se Doctrine of Commonwealth Relations 48 (1958);Google Scholar The British Commonwealth in International Law 144 (1963).

141 Morocco, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, discussed above.

142 See, for example, 33 U.N. Gen. Ass. Off. Rec. 23rd Sess., Supp. No. 9, at 28, para. 70 (A/7209/Rev. 1) (1968).

143 Ibid.; see U.N. Gen. Ass. Res. 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960.

144 Lauterpacht, E., Note on “State Succession and agreements for the inheritance of treaties,” 7 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 524, 529 (1958).Google Scholar

145 McNair, , The Law of Treaties 650 (1961).Google Scholar

146 Mann, , “The Assignability of Treaty Rights,” 3 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 475 (1953).Google Scholar

147 A. P. Lester, supra note 46, at 505.

148 Van Panhuys, , “La succession de L’Indonesie aux accords internationaux conclus par les Pays-Bas avant l’independence de L’Indonesie,” 2 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 67 (1955);Google Scholar see also Green, 32 Saskatchewan L. Rev. 104 (1967).

149 O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 21, at 371.

150 McNair, , The Law of Treaties 650 (1961).Google Scholar

151 See, for example, Treaties in Force 1962, 1964, 1966.

152 [1961] I.C.J. Rep. 17; 2 Temple of Preah Vihear Case —I.C.J. Pleadings 27 (1962).