Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:11:56.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the uniting of States in respect of treaties*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

O.M. Ribbelink
Get access

Extract

Apart from the proverbial exception to the rule, all changes in the composition of the international community of States resulting from State succession, whether through decolonization or through the uniting or separation of States, are reflected in the membership of the United Nations. In the first 50 years of its existence the number of member States of the organization has almost quadrupled, and this growth is to a large extent attributable to a multitude of cases of State succession, the majority of which resulted from decolonization. When these ‘new’ States began to outnumber the ‘old’ ones, State succession, and in particular the international legal implications of State succession, became a ‘hot issue’ on the UN agenda, especially on the International Law Commission's (ILC) agenda.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 26 , December 1995 , pp. 139 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1995

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. From 51 original members in 1945 to 185 members as per 31 December 1994, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, ST/LEG/SER.E/13, Status as at 31 December 1994, at p. 3. Hereinafter: Multilateral Treaties (1994). On 15 December 1994 Palau became the 185th member State of the UN. See UN Communiqué ORG/1190, 15 December 1994. Also see GA Res. 49/163, and SC Res. 956 (1994).

2. ‘Succession of States and Governments’ was one of 14 topics selected in 1949 by the ILC as suitable for codification. In 1962 the topic was placed on the agenda on the recommendation of the General Assembly. On the ILC, see e.g., SirVallat, Francis, ‘International Law Commission’, EPIL, Instalment 9 (1986) pp. 183–191Google Scholar; United Nations, The Work of the International Law Commission, 4th edn. (1988)Google Scholar; McRae, D.M., ‘The International Law Commission: Codification and Progressive Development After Forty Years, Can. YBIL (1987) pp. 355–368Google Scholar; Ramcharan, B.G., The International Law Commission (1977).Google Scholar

3. Doc. A/CONF. 80/31. Text also in 17 ILM (1978) p. 1488. On the Vienna Convention 1978, see e.g., O'Connell, D.P., ‘Reflections on the State Succession Convention’, 39 ZaöRV (1979)pp. 725–739Google Scholar; Yasseen, M.K., ‘La Convention de Vienne sur la succession d'Etats en matière de traités’, 24 AFDI (1978) pp. 59–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Treviranus, H.D., ‘Die Konvention der Vereinten Nationen über Staatensukzession bei Verträgen’, 39 ZaöRV (1979) pp. 259–300Google Scholar; Bello, E.G., ‘Reflections on Succession of States in the Light of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1978’, 23 GYIL (1980) pp. 296–322Google Scholar; Fiedler, W., ‘Die Konventionen zum Recht der Staatensukzession’, 24 GYIL (1981) pp. 9–62Google Scholar; Meriboute, Z., La Codification de la Succession d'Etats aux Traités (1984).Google Scholar

The Vienna Convention 1978 is also the second in a series of three treaties codifying the law of treaties. The first is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Doc. A/CONF. 39/27, also in 8 ILM (1969) p. 679), and the third is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations of 1986 (Doc. A/CONF. 129/15, also in 25 ILM (1986) p. 543).

4. Doc. A/CONF. 117/14. Also in 22 ILM (1983) p. 298. On the Vienna Convention 1983, see e.g., Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., ‘Das Wiener Übereinkommen über Staatennachfolge in Vermögen, Archive und Schulden von Staaten’, 34 ÖZöRV (1983) pp. 173–199Google Scholar; Streinz, R., ‘Succession of States in Assets and Liabilities – A New Regime?’, 26 GYIL (1983) pp. 198–237Google Scholar; Nathan, E., ‘The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts’, in Dinstein, Y., ed., International Law at a Time of Perplexity (1989) at pp. 489–518.Google Scholar

5. E.g., Yemen, Germany, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Eritrea.

6. E.g., the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or COMECON).

7. Draft Articles on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties with Commentaries Adopted by the International Law Commission at its Twenty-Sixth Session, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4; United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, Official Records, Vol. III, United Nations, 1979 (hereinafter: Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4); text also in ILC Yearbook 1974 Vol. II, Part 1, pp. 174–269.

8. E.g., Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 4th edn. (1990) pp. 668–669Google Scholar, who questions the ILC draftand, subsequently, the Vienna Convention 1978. Inhis viewsomedistinctions drawn by the ILC ‘are not reflected by the practice of states.’ E.g., ‘the distinction between a secession and the dissolution of federations and unions is unacceptable, both as a proposition of law and as a matter of law.’ And O'Connell, loc. cit. n. 3, passim, who criticizes the decisive influence of politics and rhetorics on the outcome of the work of the ILC and of the Conference. He even holds the latter responsible for ‘… a further step in the debilitation of international jurisprudence’, ibid., p. 727. Also Nathan, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 496.

9. Art. 2(1)(f) Vienna Convention 1978: ‘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 was responsible.’ Cf., Part III, Arts. 16–30, Vienna Convention 1978.

10. See e.g., Streinz, loc. cit. n. 4, at pp. 231–234. Also on the NIS and the Vienna Convention 1978, see e.g., O'Connell, loc. cit. n. 3, at p. 736: ‘ … this particular essay in refashioning the law was marred from its inception by a preoccupation with the special problem of decolonization.’ And on the NIS and the Vienna Convention 1983, see e.g., Seidl-Hohenveldern, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 192: ‘Der Königsgedankedes ganzen Übereinkommens istaberdochdie Besserstellung derneuen unabhängigen Staaten.’

11. Cf., Part III: Newly Independent States, Section 1: General Rule, which consistsof the single Art. 16: Position in respect of the treaties of the predecessor state: ‘A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or 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.’

12. E.g., Brownlie, op. cit. n. 8, pp. 668–669.

13. But see Seidl-Hohenveldern, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 173, who points out that the Western States were outnumbered. Even as a bloc they could not have prevented the Conference from taking decisions.

14. It is widely acknowledged, e.g., by SirSinclair, I., ‘Some Reflections on the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties’, in Manner, E.J. et al. , eds., Essays in Honour of Eric Castrén (1979) pp. 149–183, at pp. 180–181Google Scholar, that at least some of the NIS saw the codification of the law of State succession, if only in a moral sense, as an opportunity to retrospectively justify their position at the time they gained independence. However, it is equally accepted that many NIS were strongly motivated to participate in the codification and progressive development of international law, in order to state and restate the rules, in various important areas of international law.

15. Art. 49 Vienna Convention 1978; Art. 50 Vienna Convention 1983. On 31 December 1994 the Vienna Convention 1978 had 20 signatories and 13 parties thereto. Note that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia have become parties upon succession after ratification by Yugoslavia. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have succeeded to the signature of Czechoslovakia. See Multilateral Treaties, supra, n. 1, at p. 896. At the same date the Vienna Convention 1983 had 6 signatories and 3 parties thereto, the latter through the accession of three former Republics of the Soviet Union: Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine. Ibid., at p. 82.

16. Art. 31 VC 1978; Arts. 16, 29, 39 VC 1983. On the uniting of States, see e.g., Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, at pp. 80–88; Also O'Connell, D.P., State Succession in Municipal and International Law, Vol. II (1967) Ch. 5.Google Scholar

17. Art. 34(1) of the Vienna Convention 1978 describes separation of States as follows: ‘When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate to form one or more States, whether or not the predecessor State continues to exist.’

18. Streinz, loc. cit. n. 4, at p. 223.

19. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 5, para. 4. On the distinction between succession of States and Governments, see e.g., Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law (1979) pp. 27–29 and 405–406Google Scholar; Oppenheim's International Law, SirJennings, Robert and SirWatts, Arthur, eds, Vol., I, Peace (1992) para. 67, pp. 234–236Google Scholar; Restatement of the Law (Third), ‘The Foreign Relations Law of the United States’, Vol. I (1986) para. 208, comment a and fn. 2, pp. 102–103Google Scholar. On the succession of one international organization by another, see e.g., Chiu, H., ‘Succession in International Organizations’, 14 ICLQ (1965) pp. 83–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hahn, H.J., ‘Continuity in the Law of International Organizations’, Duke LJ (1962) (Summer, pp. 378–422Google Scholar; Autumn, pp. 522–557); Kiss, A.-Ch., ‘Quelques aspects de la substitution d'une organisation à une autre’, VII AFDI (1961) pp. 463–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Myers, P.R., Succession Between International Organizations (1993)Google Scholar; Ribbelink, O.M., Opvolging van international organisaties (1988).Google Scholar

20. The Parts of the 1978 VC are: Part I, ‘General Provisions’ (Arts. 1–14); Part II, Art. 15; Part III, ‘Newly Independent States’ (Arts. 16–30); Part IV, ‘Uniting and Separation of States’ (Arts. 31–38); Part V, ‘Miscellaneous Provisions’ (Arts. 39–40); Part VI, ‘Settlement of Disputes’ (Arts. 41–45); and Part VII, ‘Final Provisions’ (Arts. 46–50).

21. Art. 31: ‘Effects of a Uniting of States in Respect of Treaties in Force at the Date of the Succession of States’; Art. 32; ‘Effects of a Uniting of States in Respect of Treaties Not in Force at the Dateof the Succession of States’; Art. 33: ‘Effects of a Uniting of States in Respect of Treaties Signed by a Predecesor State Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval’. Arts. 34–37 deal with the separation of States, and Art. 38 with notifications.

22. Draft arts. 30–32 have become Arts. 31–33 in the Convention. This change is due to the inclusion at the time of the Conference of a new Art. 13 which states that nothing in the Convention shall affect the principles of international law affirming the permanent sovereignty of every people and every State over its natural wealth and resources. See e.g., Meriboute, op. cit. n. 3, at pp. 56–61, who connects the inclusion of the article to the emphasis on a wide interpretation of the right to self-determination as put forward by the Newly Independent States. Also, Fiedler, loc. cit. n. 3, at pp. 19–21 and 39–47.

23. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 82, para. 1. Emphasis in the original. Since Art. 6 Vienna Convention 1978 states that the Convention only applies to the effects of a succession of States occurring in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, the annexation of territory falls outside the scope of the Convention.

24. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 82, para. 2.

25. Idem.

26. Ibid., p. 82, para. 1.

27. See Part III, Section 5, Vienna Convention 1978, which consists of the single Art. 30 (draft Art. 29): ‘Newly Independent States Formed from Two or More territories’.

28. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, ‘supra’, n. 7, p. 82, para. 1. Emphasis in original.

29. Ibid., p. 38, para. 1.

30. Art. 15: ‘Succession in Respect of Part of Territory’.

‘When part of the territory of a State, or when any territory for the international relations of which a State is responsible, not being part of the territory of that State, becomes part of the territory of another State:

(a) 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; and

(b) 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 to the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation’.

31. Idem.

32. Ibid., p. 38, para. 1.

33. Idem.

34. Ibid., p. 38, para. 3.

35. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Art. 29:

‘Territorial Scope of Treaties’:

‘Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory’.

36. Ibid., p. 38, para. 1.

37. See Art. 4, Vienna Convention 1978:

Art. 4: Treaties constituting international organizations and treaties adopted within an international organization.

The present Convention applies to the effects of a succession of States in respect of: (a) any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization without prejudice to the rules concerning acquisition of membership and without prejudice to any other relevant rules of the organization; (b) any treaty adopted within an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization.

38. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 10, para. 10.

39. Idem.

40. Ibid., p. 39, para. 7.

41. Ibid., p. 87, para. 28.

42. See e.g., Fiedler, W., ‘State Succession’, in Bernhardt, R., ed., Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1987) Installment 10, pp. 446–456, at p. 447Google Scholar; Oppenheim's International Law, op. cit. n. 19, at pp. 208–211. The incidence of universal succession should not be confused with the theory of universal succession, which deals primarily with the consequences of state succession. See e.g., O'Connell, D.P., ‘Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States’, 130 RdC (1970-II) pp. 95–206Google Scholar, Ch. II, ‘The Theory of State Succession’, at pp. 104–115.

43. Oppenheim's International Law, op. cit. n. 19, at p. 210.

44. Ibid., at p. 211.

45. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 82, para. 3. Emphasis in original.

46. Ibid., p. 82, paras. 4 and 5.

47. Ibid., p. 7, para. 9.

48. As the ILC notes this is in conformity with Art. 78 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. See Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 96, commentary to draft art. 37.

49. References are to the most recent issue available at the time of writing, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, ST/LEG/SER.E/13, Status as at 31 December 1994.

50. On the function of depositary of treaties, see e.g.,Stoll, J., ‘Depositary’, EPIL, Installment 7 (1984) pp. 68–69Google Scholar; Rosenne, S., ‘The Depositary of International Treaties’, 61 AJIL (1967) pp. 923–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenne, S., ‘More on the Depositary of International Treaties’, 64 AJIL (1970) pp. 838–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the practice of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, see O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 215–219. And ‘Successsion of States to general multilateral treaties of which the Secretary-General is the depositary’, memorandum prepared by the Secretariat, Doc. A/CN-4/150, text also in ILC Yearbook 1962 Vol. II, pp. 106–131. Also cf., Part. IV, Arts. 76–80, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

51. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, Chapter I.I – ‘Original Membership’; Chapter 1.2 – ‘Admission of new Members’.

52. Some examples of these name changes, for obvious reasons limited to the first three letters of the alphabet, are: Belarus, until 18 September 1991 ‘Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic’; Benin, until 2 December 1975 ‘Dahomey’; Burkina Faso, until 4 August 1984 ‘Upper Volta’; Cambodia, from 28 December 1970 to 30 April 1975 ‘Khmer Republic’, before that and there after ‘Cambodia’; Cameroon, as from 4 February 1984, from 10 March 1975 to 3 February 1984 ‘United Republic of Cameroon’ and prior to 10 March 1975 ‘Cameroon’; Central African Republic, December 1976 to 20 September 1979 ‘Central African Empire’; Congo, before 15 November 1971 ‘People's Republic of the Congo’; Cote d'lvoire, until 31 December 1985 ‘Ivory Coast’. Source: Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, at pp. 3 and 8.

53. This excludes, e.g., the case of Vietnam which (re-)united on 2 July 1976, before it was admitted to the United Nations on 20 September 1977; and the case of the Federation of Malaysia, a member State since 17 September 1957, to which Singapore was admitted on 16 September 1963. Singapore successively became an independent State on 9 August 1965 and a UN member State on 21 September 1965. O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, pp. 68–70. Also Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 79, paras. 5 and 6 on the adherence of Singapore to the federation, and ibid., pp. 92–93, para. 18 on its separation from Malaysia.

54. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 4, n. 5. See infra, section 4.1.

55. Ibid., p. 10, n. 26. See infra, section 4.2.

56. Ibid., p. 10, n. 28. See infra, section 4.3.

57. Ibid., p. 9, n. 13. See infra, section 4.4.

58. Cf., supra, section 2.1.

59. Cf., Art. 4 Vienna Convention 1978 cf., supra, n. 37 and Art. 5 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. On State succession and the membership of International Organizations, see e.g., O.M. Ribbelink, ‘Statenopvolging en Internationale Organisaties met bijzondere nadruk op de praktijk van de Verenigde Naties’, Preadvies, Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht (1995).

60. Cf., UNDoc. A/CN.4/149 and Add. 1. Also in Yearbook ILC (1962) Vol. II, pp. 101–105.

61. On the United Arab Republic see e.g., Cotran, E., ‘Some Legal Aspects of the Formation of the United Arab Republic and the United Arab States’, 8 ICLQ (1959) pp. 346–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 372–390 documents); O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 71–74 and 193–196; Young, R., The State of Syria: Old or New?, 56 AJIL (1962) pp. 482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar; González Campos, J.D., ‘Notas sobre la practica de las organizaciones internacionales respecto a los efectos de la sucesion de estados en el estatuto de miembro de la organizacion’, Revista Española de Derecho International (1962) pp. 465–508, at pp. 467–474.Google Scholar

62. Egypt deposited its instrument of ratification on 22 October 1945; Syria did so on 19 October 1945. See Multilateral Treaties (1994) supra, n. 1, at p. 3.

63. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, at p. 4, n. 5; Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 84, para. 15. And Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law, Vol. 13 (1963) p. 1014.Google Scholar

64. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, at p. 84, para. 15.

65. A/CN.4/149 and Add. 1, para. 20, as quoted in Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 84, para 15.

66. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 84, para. 15.

67. Ibid., p. 84, at p. 16.

68. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 4, at p. 5. On the dissolution of the UAR, see Young, loc. cit. n. 61; González Campos, loc. cit. n. 61, at pp. 481–488; O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 169–170.

69. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 4 at p. 5; Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 91, para. 9.

70. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n.7, p. 91, para. 9.

71. Ibid., p. 90, para. 9.

72. The Acts of Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, Dares Salaam, 22 April 1964, 3ILM (1964) p. 764; ‘Problems of State Succession in Africa: Statement of the Prime Minister of Tanganyika’, 11 ICLQ (1962) pp. 1210–1214.

73. GA Res. 1667 (XVI).

74. GA Res. 1975 (XVIII).

75. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 10, fh. 26.

76. Idem.

77. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra n. 7, p. 84, para. 17.

78. See e.g., the ratification act, Articles of Union, Transitional Provisions Decree, the Interim Constitution Decree, in 3 ILM (1964) p. 763.

79. Art. 8 Vienna Convention 1978 deals with devolution agreements. See also Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, pp. 13–18. These agreements seek to make provision for the devolution of rights and obligations under treaties applicable to the territory concerned, from the predecessor State to the successor State. It was the common practice of the UK upon the attainment of independence by its dependent teritories. But see e.g., the Netherlands and Indonesia (1949); Italy and Somalia (1960); Malaysia and Singapore (1965). See Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 13, para. 3. As the ILC noted ‘a devolution agreement is in principle ineffective by itself to pass either treaty obligations or treaty rights of the predecessor to the successor state,’ since it cannot bind any other state party without the latter's consent, ibid., p. 14, para. 6. This has been reflected in the practice of the Secretary-General acting as depositary, who only acts upon a specific notification by the successor State, independently from the existence of a devolution agreement, ibid., p. 15, para. 12. Also e.g., O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 358–373; Meriboute, op. cit. n. 3, at pp. 97–104.

80. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 18, para. 2.

81. The Nyerere Declaration, which was named after President Julius Nyerere, was sent to the Secretary-General on 9 December 1961. See Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 18, para. 2; also see Makonnen, Y., ‘State Succession in Africa: Selected Problems’, 200 RdC (1986) pp. 93–234Google Scholar, at pp. 121–148; and O'Connell, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 116–118.

82. Various other NIS have issued comparable declarations, e. g., Uganda (1963), Zambia (1965), Botswana (1966), Lesotho (1967), Nauru (1968), Swaziland (1968), Tonga (1970), and Surinam (1975). And see the statement by Palau, the newest UN member State, of 10 November 1994; Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, p. 10, fn. 30. What these declarations have in common is that all NIS demanded that the Secretary-General should circulate their declarations to all UN member States. There are differences, however, e.g., in the duration of the term in which the successor State shall decide, and in the status of the treaties during this period. See Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, pp. 18–23. Also see Makonnen, loc. cit. n. 81, at p. 139.

83. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 85, para. 18.

84. Idem.

85. Idem.

86. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 10, n. 26.

87. Idem.

88. Agreement on the Establishment of the Republic of Yemen, Sana'a, 22 April 1990, 30 ILM (1991) p. 820. On the uniting of Yemen, see e.g., Dunbar, C., ‘The Unification of Yemen: Process, Politics, and Prospects’, 46 Middle East J (1992) pp. 456–476Google Scholar; Goy, R., ‘La reunification du Yemen’, 36 AFDI (1990) pp. 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. GA Res. 108 (II).

90. GA Res. 2310 (XXII). Over the years the PDRY has been successively listed as ‘Southern Yemen’, ‘People's Republic of Southern Yemen’, ‘People's Democratic Republic of Yemen’ and ‘Democratic Republic of Yemen’. See Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 10, n. 28.

91. Idem. In the French edition: ‘… s'uniront pour former un Etat souverain’. And in an UN Press Communiqué which of course is unofficial, it is said that ‘Les deux Etats ont fusionné’ See Communiqué de Presse, ORG/1165, 29 July 1993, p. 11.

92. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 10, n. 28.

93. Idem.

94. The literature on the uniting of Germany is abundant. The following therefore only represents a, probably not even representative, selection: Wittkowski, R., ‘Die Staatensukzession in Völkerrechtliche Verträge unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Herstellung der staatlichen Einheit Deutschlands’, 48 Schriften Zum Stoats- und Völkerrecht (1992)Google Scholar; Fastenrath, U., ‘Die Regelungen über die Staatennachfolge bei der Vereinigung der beiden deutschen Staaten’, 25 Verfassung und Rechtin Übersee (1992) pp. 67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oeter, S., ‘German Unification and State Succession’, 51 ZaöRV (1991) pp. 349–383Google Scholar; Elbe, F., ‘Resolvingthe External Aspectsof German Unification, The “two-plusfour” Process’, 36 GYIL (1993) pp. 371–384Google Scholar; Fastenrath, U., ‘Der Deutsche Einigungsvertrag im Lichte des Rechts der Staatennachfolge’, 44 Austrian JPIL (1992) pp. 1–54Google Scholar; Heilbronner, K., ‘Legal Aspects of the Unification of the Two German States’, 2 EJIL (1991) pp. 18–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von der Dunk, F.G. and Kooijmans, P.H., ‘The Unification of Germany and International Law’, 12 Michigan JIL (1991) pp. 510–557Google Scholar; Hobe, S. and Spude, M., ‘Unification of German Space Activities — Legal Implications’, 40 ZLW (1991) pp. 163–176Google Scholar. With respect to the European Communities, see also infra, n. 101.

95. GA Res. 3050 (XXVIII).

96. A/45/557, 28 September 1990.

97. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 9 at para. 13. In the French edition: ‘ … En vertu de l'adhesion de la [RDA] à la [RFA], …, les deux États allemands se sont unis pour former un seul État souverain …’ In Communiqué de Presse, ORG/1165, 29 July 1993, p. 1, ‘adhesion’ is even changed into ‘rattachement’.

98. English translation in 30 ILM (1991) 457.

99. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 9 at 13.

100. Idem.

101. On the uniting of Germany and the European Communities, see e.g., Giegerich, T., ‘The European Dimension of German Reunification: East Germany's Integration into the European Communities’, 51 ZaöRV (1991) pp. 384–450Google Scholar; Tomuschat, C., ‘A United Germany Within the European Community’, 27 CMLR (1990) pp 415–436Google Scholar; Timmermans, C.W.A., ‘German Unification and Community Law’, 27 CMLR (1990) pp. 437–449Google Scholar. More generally see e.g., Kuyper, P.J., ‘The Community and State Succession in Respect of Treaties’, in Curtin, D. and Heukels, T., eds., Institutional Dynamics of European Integration, Essays in Honour of Henry G. Schermers, Vol. II (1994) at pp. 619–640Google Scholar; and Weiss, J.F., ‘Succession of States in Respect of Treaties Concluded by the European Communities’, 10 SEW (1994) pp. 661–679.Google Scholar

102. Letter to Parliament from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 13 May 1990. Bijl. Hand. II 1993/94 – 23730 (R. 1503) No. 1. In fact die consultations concerned two treaties in particular: a treaty on the settlement of financial compensation for the Dutch victims of nazi persecution, and an additional protocol. Text in Trb. (1960) No. 70 and Trb. (1962) No. 53.

103. Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 12/340, Statementby State Secretary Dr. Worms, 2 April 1991.

104. Letter of 17 December 1990, reproduced in a collection of German State Practice Concerning State Succession and Issues of Recognition, prepared by the Max-Planck-Institut (Heidelberg) for a Pilot Project of the Council of Europe, covering the years 1989–1991.

105. Inter-office Memorandum. Source: supra, n. 104.

106. Idem.

107. Hobe and Spude, loc. cit. n. 94, at pp. 174–176.

108. Cf., Art. 4 Vienna Convention 1978 which states that the Convention applies in respect of constituent instruments of international organizations, without prejudice, however, to the rules concerning aquisition of membership and without prejudice to any other relevant rules of the organization.

109. Then again, the resumption of UN membership by Syria was cabled to the President of the General Assembly, and was followed, some nine months later, by a letter to the Secretary-General communicating Syria's position regarding treaty obligations entered into during the existence of the UAR; see supra, section 4.1.

110. In the United Republic of Tanzania: the Ministry of External Affairs.

111. Cf., supra, n. 79 and n. 81.

112. Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, p. 86, para. 24. Emphasis by the ILC.

113. Multilateral Treaties (1994), supra, n. 1, p. 10, n. 28.

114. See also Oeter, loc. cit. n. 94, at p. 355.

115. On the specifics of the approach of the European Community to the German unification, see e.g., Kuyper, loc. cit. n. 101, at pp. 623–633.

116. Oeter, loc. cit. n. 94, at p. 361.

117. E.g., Oeter, loc. cit. n. 94, at pp. 360–362; and Fastenrath, ‘Der Deutsche’, loc. cit. n. 94, at p. 46.4

118. Cf., Draft Articles, Doc. A/CONF. 80/4, supra, n. 7, pp. 82–83.

119. Ibid., p. 87, para. 26.

120. Ibid., p. 87, para. 27.

121. Ibid., p. 83, para. 12.

122. Ibid., p. 84, para. 13.

123. Ibid., p. 84, para. 17.

124. The proposal was put before Parliament on 14 March 1990, see Bijl. Hand. II 1989–90 21494 (R. 1385), N. 1. It was withdrawn on 16December 1994, see Bijl. Hand. II1994/95 — 21495 (R. 1385), N. 9.