State Succession in International Law

Extract

[...] It crystallizes both the recognition of state sovereignty and integration within the universal institutional legal order. This process, governed by rigorous legal norms however, it is dependent on the geopolitical dynamics that influence its implementationB). Membership in the UN as a vector of international recognition Membership in the UN has a decisive juridico-political significance, as it consecrates the full and complete integration of successor States within the international community, while affirming their status as subjects of international law. This process is based on a fundamental distinction between the continuing State and the successor State, a distinction that conditions the terms of their admission to the Organization. [...]

[...] The issue of state succession is, as Professor Charles Rousseau has so aptly pointed out, one of the . one of the most complex and probably the most difficult aspects of the effects of territorial transformations on the legal ordering . » 1. This complexity explains in part by the fact that « . It is only in recent times that doctrine has begun to seriously study the problem, setting aside any a priori views and starting to systematically analyze a practice that had barely been cleared up until then »2. [...]

[...] In any case, state succession can be legally defined as « the substitution of one state for another in international responsibility for a determined territory » 5. It can take different forms. One distinguishes three, namely «the transfer of territory, the constitution of a state and accession to independence »6. This notion must be clearly distinguished from the succession of governments, which, in theory, produces no effect in international law, under the principle of the identity of the state in the event of a political mutation. [...]

[...] Historically, the legal mechanisms aimed at regulating state succession have followed an evolutionary trajectory marked by significant developments. Following World War states favored a conventional regulation of the issues associated with it, in order to prevent the legal disorders that could arise. Subsequently, during the decolonization phase, the principle of the tabula rasa has imposed itself, allowing new states to refuse to be bound by the commitments entered into by their colonial predecessors. Finally, from the post-Cold War period, the progressive consecration of the rules enunciated by the 1978 Vienna Convention has illustrated a growing desire to stabilize and codify the legal dynamics of state succession.4. [...]

[...] The fundamental principles governing the succession of States in matters of treaties The legal regime of State succession in matters of treaties is structured around two antinomic but complementary legal principles: the principle of conventional continuity and that of the tabula rasa. The principle of conventional continuity, explicitly enshrined in Article 31, paragraph of the 1978 Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties, provides that : « when two or more States unite and thus form a successor State, any treaty that, at the date of State succession, is in force with respect to any of these States remains in force with respect to the successor State? [...]