Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:05:45.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Succession and continuation, A study on treaty practice in post-war Germany *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Renata Sonnenfeld
Get access

Abstract

The disappearance of the Third Reich from the international scene and the emergence of two German States was accomplished by such unorthodox means that the literature on the subject often resorts to the qualification “sui generis” when describing situations and facts, for which there are no precedents. Furthermore, the legal problems connected with the status of the German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.) and the Federal Republic of Germany (F.R.G.) are so closely related to the development of political relations in Europe, that they cannot be considered in isolation from political elements.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 7 , December 1976 , pp. 91 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1976

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. “What followed after the surrender of the enemy must be judged in the light not of the specific laws but of the general principles of justice and equity”, wrote Fenwick, , International Law (4th ed., New York, 1965), p. 683Google Scholar, see also p. 757.

2. Jennings commented: “The Berlin Declaration is obviously a carefully drafted document and it is significant that far from declaring that the occupying powers have assumed the sovereignty over Germany, it studiously avoids any reference to sovereignty. It speaks only of an assumption of “supreme authority” which is not necessarily the same thing”. Jennings, R.Y., “Government in Commission”, 23 B.Y.I.L. (1946) p. 121.Google Scholar

3. The complexity and difficulty of the problem of continuity and succession in Germany are illustrated by the following quotation: “The writer is fully aware of the existence of the problem of state identity and continuity in the case of post-war Germany. If an analysis of this question has not been included in this work, this is not only because of the immensity of the problem … but first and foremost, because such analysis against the existing political background would seem to be premature”. Kristina, Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (Genève, 1968), p. 74.Google Scholar

4. McNair, A., “Aspects of State Sovereignty”, 26 B.Y.I.L. (1949) p. 8.Google Scholar

5. Marek, op. cit., p. 10.

6. In Poland, see in particular works by A. Klafkowski, K. Skubiszewski and B. Wiewióra. For a summary of these works and further sources see Brymas, M., “Zagadnienia miedzynarodowe” [International Problems] in Niemcy wspólczesne jako przedmiot badán nauki polskiej 1945–1970 [Contemporary Germany as a subject of study by Polish research 1945–1970] (Poznán, 1971) p. 53 et seqGoogle Scholar. For other writings see Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, vol. 2 (7 th ed.), p. 604.Google Scholar

7. Official Gazette of the Control Couneil for Germany, 1945, Supplement no. 1, p. 7Google Scholar. (quoted in Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945–1954, edited by von Oppen, B. Ruhm (Oxford, 1955), p. 29.Google Scholar

8. Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany No. 1, pp. 8 and 68.Google Scholar

9. For example, Control Council Law No. 2, ibid. p. 79.

10. 3 Recueil des Documents 1948, edited by the Polish Institute of Foreign Affairs, p. 5.

11. Klafkowski, A., Umowa poczdamska z dnia 2. VIII. 1945 r Podstawy prawne likwidacji skutków wojny polsko-niemieckiej z lat 1939–1945 [The Potsdam Agreement of 2 August 1945. The legal foundations of the liquidation of the effects of the Polish - German war of 1939–1945] (Warsaw, 1960), pp. 246–253.Google Scholar

12. The definition of debellatio and the views of research, see Klafkowski, A., Sprawa Traktatu pokoju z Niemcami [The Problem of a Peace Treaty with Germany] (Warsaw, 1953), pp. 68–72.Google Scholar

13. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit. vol. 1 (8th ed.) p. 568.

14. For sources, comp. Skubiszewski, K., Zachodnia granica Polski [The Western Border of Poland] (Gdansk, 1969), p. 492.Google Scholar

15. Ibid. p. 496.

16. K. Marek, op. cit., p. 73 et seq.

17. Guggenheim, P., Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Basle, 1951), vol. II, p. 926Google Scholar; equally Sauser-Hall, G., “L'Occupation de l'Allemagne parles Puissances Alliees”, 4 Sch.J.I.R. (1946), p. 36.Google Scholar

18. K. Marek, op. cit., p. 74.

19. K. Skubiszewski, op. cit., p. 495.

20. Cf. Maclntyre, St. H., Legal Effect of World War II on Treaties of the United States (The Hague, 1957), p. 257.Google Scholar

21. As quoted by Bindschedler, R., “Die Völkerrechtliche Stellung Deutschlands” [The Position of Germany in International Law] 6 Sch.J.I.R. (1949), p. 59.Google Scholar

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., p. 61.

24. Cf. “Die Bundesrepublik in der Berner Union” [The Federal Republic in the Bern Union], 29 Die Bundesbahn (1955) p. 651Google Scholar, as quoted by Hoenicke, U., Die Fortgeltung von Verträgen des Deutschen Reiches in der BRD und der DDR [The Continuation of Treaties of the German Reich in the FRG and the GDR] (Göttingen, 1972), p. 87.Google Scholar

25. Bindschedler, op. cit., p. 61.

26. Ibid.

27. Rybicki, R., Status prawny Berlina Zachodniego [The Legal Status of West-Berlin] (Warsaw, 1972), p. 106.Google Scholar

28. Kelsen, H., “The Legal Status of Germany According to the Declaration of Berlin”, 39 A.J.I.L. (1945) p. 518–526.Google Scholar

29. Kröger, H., “Adenauers Identitätstheorie und die völkerrechtliche Stellung der DDR” [Adenauer's Theory of Identity and the Position of the G.D.R. in International Law], 2 Deutsche Aussenpolitik (1957) p. 359.Google Scholar

30. Cf. for example, Brandweiner, Peck, Kirsten, Poeggel; see further Kirsten, J., Einige Probleme der Staatennachfolge [Some Problems of State Succession] (Berlin, 1962), pp. 138–139Google Scholar. Wünsche and Pahl draw attention to the peculiar situation of Germany which “can only with difficulty be brought into accord with the current concepts of international law”, “Zu einigen Fragen der Staatennachfolge und ihrer Bedeutung für die Deutsche Demokratische Republik” [On some Questions of State Succession and their Importance for the German Democratic Republic], D.A.S.R. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, (without date) p. 135. Peck considers that while Germany ceased to exist as a subject of international law, it remains a legal entity (rechtliche Einheit), See Völkerrechtssubjektivität der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik [The legal Personality of the German Democratic Republic in International Law] (Berlin, 1960), p. 73.Google Scholar

31. For example, Arcibasov, I.N., G.D.R. subjekt mezdunarodnowo prawa [The G.D.R. – Subject of International Law] (Moscow, 1969) pp. 12–13Google Scholar; a different opinion is expressed, for example, by Prof. Tunkin, , cf. “Berlinskij wopros w swete mezdunarodnowo prawa” [The Berlin Question in the Light of International Law], Miezdunarodnaja Zizn [International Life] (1959) No. 2, p. 49.Google Scholar

32. Gelberg, L., Niemcy po drugiej wojnie światowej [Germany after World War II] (Wroclaw, 1971) p. 21.Google Scholar

33. Cf. Klafkowski, A., Umowa Poczdamska etc., op. cit. p. 252.Google Scholar

34. Cf. for instance, Ulbricht, W., Zur Geschichte der neusten Zeit [On the History of Modern Time] vol. I/1 (Berlin, 1955), pp. 78 and 96Google Scholar; see also, statement by the G.D.R. Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr. Bolz at the Geneva Conference, 21 March 1959, Neues Deutschland, 22 March 1959, p. 2.

35. Cf. I.L.C. Yearbook 1963, vol. II, pp. 146–147.Google Scholar

36. Ibid.

37. N.J. 1949, No. 548 in re Flesche, quoted by Bot, B.R., Nonrecognition and Treaty Relations (Leyden, 1968), p. 229.Google Scholar

38. Ibid. 1952, No. 327 in the case of Gevato v. Deutsche Bank.

39. The official stand adopted by the G.D.R. and the F.R.G. was – taking into account the controversial character of the problem – based, no doubt, on political and not legal considerations.

40. Cf. Klafkowski, A., Sprawa Traktatu, op. cit. p. 75.Google Scholar

41. For example, Oppenheim-Lauterpacht: “… the international personality of Germany must be deemed to have been suspended until an independent German Government should be set up …”, op. cit. p. 568; Bindschedler: “While maintaining its legal capacity (rechtsfähig), Germany has lost temporarily its capacity to contract” (Handlungsfähigkeit), op. cit., p. 58.

42. For a discussion of the events in the Trizonia see Skubiszewski, op. cit., pp. 511–514 and Gelberg, op. cit., p. 79 et seq.

43. For a detailed discussion of the process of establishment of a central authority in the Soviet zone, see Peck, op. cit., pp. 89–95.

44. Cf. declaration by General Chuikov on the establishment of the Soviet Control Commission. Documents on Germany, p. 435.

45. Russian text in Recueil des Documents, 1954, p. 557.

46. Ibid. 1955, p. 1949.

47. Skubiszewski, op. cit., pp. 517 and 545.

48. Abendroth, W., “Die Völkerrechtliche Bindung Gesamtdeutschlands durch Verträge seiner Staatsfragmente” [The Obligations of Germany under International Law Arising from Treaties Signed by its Part-States] in Gegenwartsprobleme des Internationalen Rechts und der Rechtsphilosophie [Modern Problems of International Law and Legal Philosophy] (Hamburg, 1953), p. 158.Google Scholar

49. Neue Justiz (1952), p. 222.

50. Cf., for instance, Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1958, p. 677.

51. Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1962, p. 42.

52. Kirsten, op. cit., p. 141; Brandweiner, op. cit., p. 496.

53. Wünsche, Pahl, op. cit. in n. 30, p. 135.

54. Poeggel, W., “Zür völkerrechtlichen Lage Deutschlands und beider deutschen Staaten” [On the Position of the Two German States in International Law], 11 Deutsche Aussenpolitik (1966), p. 1304.Google Scholar

55. Oeser, E.–Oeser, I., “Völkerrechtliche Aspekte der Rechtsmässigkeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik”, [The International Legal Aspects of the Legal Capacity of the German Democratic Republic], in: Deutschlandfrage und Völkerrecht [The German Question and International Law] vol. II, (Berlin, 1962), p. 197.Google Scholar

56. Ibid.

57. See Arts. 23 and 29.

58. Text of the constitution of the F.R.G., see, Constitutions of Nations, edited by Peasley, A.J. (The Hague, 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. Bundesgesetzblatt-I, 1961 p. 737 (referred to hereafter as BGBI)

60. Cf. Schuster, R., Deutschlands staatliche Existenz im Widerstreit politischer und rechtlicher Gesichtspunkte 1945–1963 [The Existence of Germany as a State in the Light of Controversial Political and Legal Points of View 1945–1963] (Munich, 1963), p. 86.Google Scholar

61. As quoted by Wiewióra, B., Niemiecka Republika Demokratyczna jako podmiot prawa miedzynarodowego [The German Democratic Republic as a subject of International Law] (Poznań, 1961), p. 149.Google Scholar

62. As quoted by Jurina, , “Völkerrechtliche Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland” [The Practice of International Law of the Federal Republic of Germany] 23 Z.aö.R.V. (1963) p. 458Google Scholar; for other examples see U. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 129.

63. Cf. for instance, the review of court verdicts in Wiewióra, op. cit., pp. 149–151.

64. I.L.C. Yearbook 1963, vol. II, p. 146, para. 465.Google Scholar

65. Ibid. p. 148, para. 484.

66. Ibid. p. 149, para. 489.

67. For instance, Schuster, op. cit., pp. 76–99 and Chapter III.

68. In Poland, for instance, Skubiszewski, op. cit., p. 542–545.

69. See the opinion of the G.D.R. jurists, above p. 97.

70. Bulletin der Bundesregierung, 8 November 1972.

71. Ibid.

72. “The full international personality of the members of the Commonwealth is not inconsistent with the fact that their relations are not in some respects primarily international in character”. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., vol. I, p. 209; see also p. 211: “… the countries of the Commonwealth do not consider each other as foreign countries”.

73. Note of the Allied High Commission of 23 October 1950, quoted by Brandweiner, , Die Pariser Verträge [The Paris Treaties] (Berlin, 1956), p. 4Google Scholar; for other declarations see Skubiszewski, op. cit., p. 547.

74. Quoted by Jurina, op. cit., p. 452.

75. Ibid., p. 453.

76. Cf., Decret No. 51–883, Journal Officiel 83 (1951), p. 7502Google Scholar, concerning the status of German citizens in France; for other sources concerning French opinion, cf. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 136.

77. Cf., Alexy, H., “Die Beteiligung an multilateralen Konferenzen, Verträgen und internationalen Organisationen als Frage der indirekten Anerkennung von Staaten” [The Participation in Multilateral Conferences, Treaties and International Organizations as a Problem of Indirect Recognition of States], 26 Z.a.ö.R. V. (1966), p. 495.Google Scholar

78. Cf. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 134.

79. Cf. for instance, Skubiszewski, K., “Podstawowe zagadnienia polityczne i prawne w stosunkach miedzynaiodowych NRF” [Basic Political and Legal Problems in the International Relations of the FRG], Monografia Niemiec współczesnych [A Monograph on Modern Germany] vol. II (Poznań, 1965).Google Scholar

80. For a list of sources see Kirsten, op. cit., p. 144.

81. Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung, No. 155, of 8 November 1972, p. 1842.Google Scholar

82. Ibid., p. 1853.

83. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 132.

84. Cf. Marek, op. cit., pp. 212–213.

85. Cf. Article 177 of the Peace Treaty.

86. Niemiec v. Białobrodziec, Annual Digest 1923/24, case No. 33.

87. It seems that this is a case of an incorrect use of the term “successor”. The whole reasoning indicates that Pakistan based its claims on the concept of identity with the predecessor and not on succession.

88. Cf. O'Connell, D.P., The Law of State Succession (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 55, 65.Google Scholar

89. Marek, op. cit., p. 236.

90. Schuster draws the right conclusion when he states that: “A decision concerning the legal understanding of the statehood of Germany and of the determination [Fixierung] in this way of a specific legal self-understanding [Selbstverständniss] of the Federal Republic of Germany is an act of a political nature”. Schuster, op. cit., p. 260.

91. Nahlik, St., Wstep do nauki prawa miedzynarodowego [Introduction to the science of International Law] (Warsaw, 1967), p. 301Google Scholar; ibid. further discussion of the reasons for that trend; see also Lachs, M., Umowy wielostronne [Multilateral Treaties] (Warsaw, 1958), p. 235.Google Scholar

92. See Harvard Research in International Law, Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties, 29 A.J.I.L. 1935, p. 1183.

93. Treaty of Trianon (Article 217 et seq.), Treaty of Neuilly (Article 167 et seq.), Treaty of Sèvres (Article 269 et seq.), Treaty of Saint Germain (Article 234 et seq.).

94. Similar provisions were contained, for instance, in the Treaty of Saint Germain (Article 241), Treaty of Trianon (Article 224), Treaty of Neuilly (Article 168).

95. As is known, the United States did not adhere to the Treaty of Versailles, however, Germany concluded an agreement with the United States in 1921 which extended to the latter all the rights and benefits deriving from the Treaty of Versailles (Article II, Treaty Restoring Friendly Relations between the United States and Germany. US Treaty Series No. 658, 1922 – as quoted by Plischke, E., “Reactivation of Prewar German Treaties”, 48 A.J.I.L. (1954) p. 249).Google Scholar

96. Documents of the Paris Peace Conference, as quoted by Lachs, op cit., p. 242.

97. 49 U.N.T.S. (1950) p. 143, similar provisions can be found in Article 8 of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 10 of the Peace Treaty with Hungary, Article 10 of the Peace Treaty with Romania, and Article 7 of the separate Peace Treaty with Japan of 1951.

98. The Moscow Declaration of 1 November 1943 designated Austria “as the first free state to fall victim of the Hitler aggression”.

99. See McIntyre, op. cit., p. 321.

100. Official Gazette on the Control Council for Germany, 1945 No. 1, p. 9 as quoted in Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945–1954, p. 68.

101. Plischke, op. cit., p. 251.

102. Clark, v. Allen, as quoted by McIntyre, op. cit., p. 335.

103. Ibid. p. 179.

104. Cf. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 142–143.

105. Cf., Mitteilung des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft [Communications of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs], as quoted in 18 Z.a.ö.R.V. (1957/1958) p. 725.Google Scholar

106. As quoted by St. Nahlik, E., “Umowy miedzynarodowe Polski Ludowej” [International Treaties of the Polish People's Republic] in 20 lat polityki zagranicznej Polski Ludowej [20 Years of the Foreign Policy of the Polish People's Republikl (Warsaw, 1964), p. 248.Google Scholar

107. Cf., Guggenheim, P., “Völkerrecht” [International Law], 4 Sch.J.I.R. (1947), p. 141.Google Scholar

108. Cf., Bindschedler, op. cit, p. 60.

109. Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 85; Bindschedler also denies to the Allied Powers the right to take steps prejudicial to the interest of neutral countries, op. cit., p. 62.

110. Spiller indicates that all treaties signed by the German Reich with other countries on avoidance of double taxation have been suspended by the Control Council. See Spiller, H., “Souveränität und Steuerrecht” [Sovereignty and Taxation Law], 8 Staat und Recht (1959), p. 1397.Google Scholar

111. Allied High Commission, Press Release No. 236, 24 October 1950, as quoted by Plischke, op. cit., p. 252.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid.

114. Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany, No. 52, p. 846, as quoted in Documents on Germany etc., p. 561.

115. 29 Department of State Bulletin (1953), p. 94.Google Scholar

116. Cf., Plischke, op. cit., p. 260.

117. As quoted by Plischke, op. cit., p. 257. According to information received by the Legal and Treaties Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the department does not possess such a note. As a depositary of the Convention Poland lists the Federal Republic of Germany as a party to the Convention from 1955, date of the F.R.G.'s accession to the Hague Protocol.

118. La Propriété Industrielle 1957, No. 73, p. 3Google Scholar, as quoted by Bot, op. cit., p. 202.

119. Ibid. 1956, No. 72, p. 193.

120. As quoted by Boehmer, G. and Walter, H., “Völkerrechtliche Praxis der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945 bis 1955” [International Legal Practice of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1955], 23 Z.a.ö.R.V. (1963) p. 302Google Scholar. A list of such conventions figures in the BGBI–II 1952 p. 607.

121. Cf., note of the Federal Government to the French Government on the reactivation of the treaty on international exhibitions of 1928, as quoted in 18 Z.ö.R.V. (1957/58), p. 725; in 1957 the said treaty was reactivated between the F.R.G. and 18 other States; ibid. Vol. 20 (1959/60), p. 105.

122. BGBl-II 1954, p. 723.

123. Bundesarbeiterblatt 1951, p. 405, as quoted by Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 158.

124. BGBl-II 1955, p. 77.

125. See Službeni vesnik Prezidijuma Narodne Skupštine, FNRJ 1952, No. 9 quoted by Frowein, J.A., Das de facto Regime im Völkerrecht [The de facto regime in International Law] (Cologne, 1968), p. 162.Google Scholar

126. Such protest notes were sent to depositaries of multilateral conventions, for example, in 1964 to the UN Secretary-General with regard to the European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International Transport, the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Constitution of the WHO and others; to Switzerland in 1965, with regard to the Madrid Convention, to the United Kingdom with regard to the International Sugar Agreement (unpublished sources, from the archives of the Legal and Treaties Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

127. Oberlandesgericht Wien [Court of Appeal, Vienna], 13 January 1959, as quoted by Hoenicke, op. cit., p. 159.

128. Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung 1956, p. 1565.Google Scholar

129. For instance, in 1967 the agreement of 1925 concerning patent rights between Germany and Greece was reactivated, see BGBl-II 1967, p. 686.

130. Dokumente zur Aussenpolitik der Regierung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik [Documents on Foreign Policy of the German Democratic Republic], vol. V, p. 26Google Scholar; cf., also, declaration on the G.D.R. participation in the Suez conference (ibid., p. 16); statement by the G.D.R. Minister for Foreign Affairs Otto Winzer at the 27th General Assembly of the United Nations: “For a quarter of a century two sovereign German States, independent of each other and living under diametrically opposed social orders have existed side by side. The German Democratic Republic as a State of peace, democracy and socialism, has nothing in common with the imperialist German Reich.” (UN General Assembly, Doc. A/PV.2134).

131. Cf. Bekanntmachung über die Wiederanwendung internationaler multilateraler Uebereinkommen [Ordinance on the resumption of implementation of international multilateral treaties], 16 April 1959, Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1959, p. 505.

132. Cf. for instance, Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1965, p. 133.

133. The draft convention of the ILC on succession of States in respect of treaties has also failed to solve that problem; as regards “newly independent States” a compromise solution was applied. Without setting a date in which notification of succession has to take place, the draft provides, in Article 22, paragraph 2 that “the operation of the treaty shall be considered as suspended until the date of making of the notification of succession”. UN doc. A/9610, vols. I and II (1974).

134. Cf., comments of the special rapporteur of the ILC and materials pertaining to Article 22 (UN doc A/9610, p, 194 et seq.).

135. First Supplementary List of Ratifications, Accessions, Withdrawals etc., Cmnd. No. 727, United Kingdom Treaty Series No. 39 (1959), p. 5.Google Scholar

136. Cf., Verordnung über die Wiederanwendung der Bestimmungen der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft zum Schutze des gewerblichen Eigentums und ihrer Nebenabkommen [Ordinance on the resumption of implementation of the Provisions of the Paris Union Treaty on the Protection of Industrial Property and connected Agreements], Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1956, p. 271.

137. Cf., Bot, op. cit., p. 201.

138. Cf., Rolin, H.–Troller, A., “Gutachten über die Mitgliedschaft der D.D.R. in den internationalen Konventionen” [Memorandum on the Membership of the G.D.R. in International Conventions], 16 Staat und Recht (1967), p. 1289.Google Scholar

139. Thus, for instance, several countries have recently withdrawn their reservations against the signing by the G.D.R. of the Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention (Canada on 13 November 1974, Norway on 12 November 1974, Sweden on 14 February 1975, Italy on 27 December 1974 – from the archives of the Legal and Treaties Department of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

140. Cf., doc. A/CN.4/278, p. 34–35.

141. Bot, op. cit., 205.

142. Ibid.

143. As quoted by Bot, op. cit., p. 207.

144. Rolin-Troller, op. cit., p. 1290.

145. Ibid. p. 1290.

146. Kirsten, op. cit., p. 163. Graefrath expresses the view that consular treaties of the German Reich are suspended. Graefrath, B., “Zur Neugestaltung des Konsularrechtes” [On the New Codification of Consular Law], 7 Staat und Recht (1958), p. 27.Google Scholar

147. See supra p. 111.

148. As quoted by Bot, op. cit., p. 227.

149. Cf. 58 A.J.I.L. (1964) pp. 1006, 1008 (letter of the Department of State of 7 February 1964).

150. Glücksmann, A., “Das Urhebenechtsgesetz und die internationalen urheberrechtlichen Abkommen” [The Law on the Protection of Artistic Property and the International Agreements oa Artistic Property], Neue Justiz 1965 p. 671.Google Scholar

151. Official Gazette of the Allied High Commission for Germany, 27 October 1949Google Scholar (as quoted by McIntyre, op. cit., p. 226).

152. Kaul attaches only formal importance to the registration of works at the Copyright Office; it may have some bearing in case of court proceedings. Only a court ruling would determine whether an author enjoys protection in the USA. Kaul, F.,“Zum Schutz der Rechte von Urhebem aus den USA in der DDR” [On the Protection of Creative Artists from the USA in the GDR], Neue Justiz 1965 p. 760.Google Scholar

153. Lübchen, G.A., “Einige aktuelle Fragen des Internationalen Privatrechts” [Some Current Problems of Private International Law], Neue Justiz 1963, p. 143.Google Scholar

154. Gesetzblatt D.D.R.-I 1965, p. 133.

155. Guggenheim, P., “La pratique Suisse”, 18 Sch.J.I.R. (1961), p. 104.Google Scholar

156. Ibid.

157. Cf., Deutsche Aussenpolitik 1957, No. 6, p. 520.

158. Ibid. 1956, No. 3, p. 280; Aussenpolitische Korrespondenz (1958) No. 50, p. 5; ibid.; No. 4, p. 5.

159. Cf., for instance, Peck, op. cit., p. 201.

160. Wüinsche-Pahl, op. cit., p. 136.

161. Peck, op. cit., p. 146.

162. Kirsten, op. cit., p. 146.

163. Kirsten, op. cit., pp. 145–157.

164. See, for instance, Kirston, op. cit., p. 57; the same opinion prevails in Soviet writings, though there are dissenting views. Thus, Kozhevnikov considers that a social revolution does not, from the legal point of view, create a new subject of international law. See Sovietskoje Gosudarstwo i Mieshdunarodnoje Prawo, 1917–1947 [Soviet State and International Law], (Moscow, 1948), p. 32 et seqGoogle Scholar.; also Modzhorian, L.A., “Idienticznost, nieprierywnost i prawoprejemstwo subjektow miezdunarodnowo prawa” [Identity, Continuity and Succession of Subjects of International Law] Sovietskoje Gosudarstwo i Prawo [Soviet State and Law] 1958 No. 9, p. 61Google Scholar. There is also no unanimity among Polish scholars: Makowski considers that in case of a “radical change of a State system only such treaties remain in force, which do not violate the new social order” Makowski, J., Organa państwa w stosunkach miedzynarodowych. Zjazdy miedzynarodowe. Umowa miedzynarodowa [State Organs in International Relations. International Congresses. International Treaties] (Warsaw, 1957), p. 192Google Scholar. On the other hand Klafkowski represents the view that a change in the social system has no bearing on succession. Klafkowski, A., Prawo miedzynarodowe publiczne [Public International Lawl (Warsaw, 1964), p. 104.Google Scholar

165. Poeggel, W., “Zur Staatennachfolge in Verträge” [On Succession of States with respect of Treaties] (Lecture), Staatennachfolge und Verantwortlichkeit im Völkerrecht. Materialien wissenschaftlicher Arbeitsberatungen der Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht in der DDR [Succession of States and Responsibility in International Law. Documents on Scientific Sessions of the International Law Association of the G.D.R.] 1973, Fasc. 114 (Postdam-Babelsberg, 1974), p. 60.Google Scholar

166. Ibid., p. 61.

167. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-sixth session 6 May-26 July 1974, G.A.O.R., 29th Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/9610/Rev. 1), para. 84.

168. Cf., UN General Assembly, doc. A/CN.4/256/Add. 3, p. 4.

169. Cf. The Effect of Independence on Treaties. A Handbook, published under the auspices of the International Law Association (London, 1965), p. 34–36.Google Scholar

170. Cf. UN General Assembly, doc. A/CN. 4/256/Add. 3, p. 9.

171. Doc. A/8710, p. 189.

172. Ibid., p. 181.

173. Finland and Zambia, cf., doc. A/CN.4/278/Add. 5, p. 14.

174. The Netherlands and the USA, cf. ibid. pp. 15–16.

175. Czechoslovakia, cf. ibid. p. 14.

176. G.D.R. cf., ibid. p. 15.

177. Doc. A/9610, vol. II, p. 262. Paragraph 2 of Article 33 provides for certain exceptions from the principle set forth in paragraph 1, for instance in the case of agreement by the parties concerned.

178. Ibid., p. 263.

179. Doc. A/9610/ Add. 1, p. 8.

180. Cf. for instance, O'Connell, D.P., State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, vol. II: International Relations (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 83–85.Google Scholar

181. Ibid. p. 85.