Omi PIL Assignment

State responsibility, succession to rights and responsibilities (duties)

Abstract

This assignment explores the concept of State succession, delineating it from government succession
and emphasizing its significance in international relations, particularly since World War II. Tracing its
historical roots to Roman law and Grotius, the paper identifies circumstances leading to State
succession, such as decolonization, dismemberment, secession, annexation, and merger. It analyzes
the transfer of political, local, fiscal debts, contractual rights, and other obligations during
succession.

The assignment delves into State responsibility, examining direct and indirect liability through
notable cases like Nicaragua v. United States and United States v. Iran. It underscores the legal
consequences of State responsibility, emphasizing cessation of wrongful acts and reparation. The
conclusion highlights the evolving nature of State succession law, calling for further development
and clarity in this dynamic field. Keywords: State succession, international law, State responsibility,
treaty breach, reparation, historical development.

Introduction

State succession refers to the merging of two or more States. It is different from government
succession in the sense that in government succession there’s a change of government whereas in
State succession the State loses control over its partial or whole territory. Art 2(1)(b) of the Vienna
Convention on the succession of States in respect of treaties in 1978 defines the term State
succession as ‘the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international
relations of territory’.

The state succession is distinguished from gout succession. When succession take place than a state
loses fully or a part of its territory; while in government has been changed. A succession of
international person (generally states) occurs when one or more international person take place of
another international person take place of another international person fully or partly and all the
right and liabilities also transfer during the succession.

In essence, it deals with the succession of one state with another and the transfer of rights and
obligations. This concept has assumed greater importance since World War II owing to its effects on
the legal obligations of the States.

History of State Succession

The rule of state succession was incorporated from the Roman law by Grotious. In Roman law when
a person dies his rights and duties are succeeded by his successors. This principle was applied by
Grotious in the International law as well. Later on there were certain international treaties through
which the rules of state succession were developed. The law of state succession is still developing.

Circumstances of State Succession

State succession can arise in a number of defined circumstances, which mirror the ways in which
political sovereignty may be acquired. They are:
  Decolonization of all or part of an existing territorial unit: This refers to situations where the
nation partially or completely overcomes itself from the holding of a superior nation.
 The dismemberment of an existing State: This refers to a situation when the territory of the
predecessor State becomes the territory of two or more new States who take over it.
 Secession: This refers to a situation where a part of the State decides to withdraw from the
existing State.
 Annexation: This refers to a situation where a State takes possession of another State.
 Merger: This refers to the fusion of two or more free States into a single free State.

Rights and Duties arising out of State Succession

The laws regarding State succession are still in a very nascent stage and keeps evolving with the
changing times. As seen above, along with the territorial and power transfers, there are transfers
with regard to duties too. This section gives a brief idea about the transfer and non-transfer of
political as well as non-political rights and duties.

Political Rights and Duties

 No succession takes place with regard to political rights and duties of the States.
 The peace treaties or the treaties of neutrality entered into by the previous State aren’t
binding on the new State.
 But the only exception here is in case of human rights treaties since it would be desirable for
the new State to adhere to such terms.
 Other than this, the new State would have to enter into new political treaties of its own.

Rights of Natives or Local Rights

 Unlike the political rights and duties, the local rights of the people do not secede with the
succession of the States.
 These rights refer to the rights such as property rights, land rights or rights relating to
railways, roads, water etc.
 In cases like these, the succeeding States are bound by the duties, obligations and rights of
the extinct State.

Fiscal Debts (State or Public Debts)

 These refer to the financial obligations or debts of the predecessor State. The successor
State is bound to pay back the debts of the predecessor State.
 This is because if the new State is enjoying the benefits of the loans, it becomes a moral
obligation as well to pay back the money.
 Next, if there is a split in the State then the entire debt amount gets divided between the
predecessor and successor State in accordance with the territory and population of each.

Contractual rights and Obligation

Predecessor state entered into contract, now whether the successor state is bound by that or not.
West Rand century Gold Mining Co. Ltd v. King, it was held that succeeding state was entitled to
decide whether it will accept the financial obligation of former state or not if it won’t accept then it
won’t be liable.

Concessionary Contracts- If the existing state has granted certain concession like the right to
operate oil mines; laying of railways etc. then such contract will be binding on succeeding state,
because they are local nature. But some of the writers/ Jurists say that the concessionary contracts
are not binding on succeeding state.

Laws- Succeeding state will have to decide whether the law have to decide whether the will be
continuing or not.

Others-1

Nationality: National of new state is gained and nationality of the predecessor state is lost.

Succession to property in foreign state: The successor state will not only receive the property
situated with in the territory but also receive the property exist in outside the territory which was
belonging to predecessor state.

Succession to property in foreign state: Successor state will not only receive the property situated
with in the territory but also receive the property exist in outside the territory which was belonging
to predecessor state.

Succession of state Archives: If no agreement was concluded in the case of cession the successor
state; the successor state should receive the part of the archives necessary for an efficient
administration of the acquired territory and all other document.

Treaty relations: Art 15 of Vienna convention” treaties of the predecessor state are to be territory.

State Responsibility

State responsibility is incurred when one State commits an internationally wrongful act against
another. For instance, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits dictatorial non-intervention by stating
that every State is under a legal obligation not to use or threaten to use force against others.
However, non-intervention is not merely limited to the prohibition of the usage of force. Any form of
coercive interference in the internal affairs of a State would invite State
responsibility. As Oppenheim’s international law puts it, “the interference must be forcible or
dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the State intervened against of control over the
matter in question. Interference pure and simple is not intervention”.

Nicaragua v. United States

1
PIL - State Succession, SURBHI WADHWA, Jiwaji University Research Paper, Accessed on 19/11/2023
A landmark case in this regard is Nicaragua v. United States; the case concerning military and
paramilitary activities in and around Nicaragua. It involved the United States supporting rebellion
groups against the Nicaraguan government. The Court found in its verdict that the United States was
“in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another
State” and “not to intervene in its affairs”.

Direct responsibility

The government, which includes the executive, the legislature, judiciary, and the central authorities
and local authorities, is what represents the State. Therefore, in the event of any of these organs
committing a breach of international law, the State shall be held directly liable. For instance, by the
representative theory, diplomatic ambassadors are considered to be representatives of the head of
the sending State. Therefore if they commit a wrongful act in the capacity of their diplomatic status,
the sending State shall be held liable. Similarly, a State is held liable for the wrongful acts of its
armed forces, if it had authorised the armed forces to carry out those acts.

Indirect responsibility

A State could also be held responsible for the acts committed by other parties if those acts were
authorized by it. This rule depends on the link that exists between the State and the person or
persons committing the wrongful act or omission. Indirect responsibility/ vicarious responsibility is a
condition when an entity is made liable to make reparation, for the acts of another entity. This
occurs when the latter has been authorized by the former to commit the act. Therefore, in such
cases, the authorizing State is held indirectly liable for the acts of the authorised State. Even if the
authorized entities exceed or disobey their instructions, the State shall be held liable, if they are
acting under ‘apparent authority’.

United States v. Iran (1980)-

On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian rebels invaded the US embassy in Tehran. They damaged
the embassy and destroyed embassy documents. The invasion lasted for hours, but despite repeated
requests, Iranian military forces did not arrive until later. More than sixty American diplomats and
citizens were held hostage until January 20, 1981. Some of the hostages were released earlier, but
52 hostages were held hostage until the end. Once on scene, the Iranian military did not attempt to
free the hostages. On November 29, 1979, the U.S. filed a claim against Iran in the International
Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ found the rebels to be ‘agents’ of the Iranian Government, because the
latter had approved and perpetuated their actions, translating occupation of the embassy and
detention of the hostages into official acts of the State, of which the perpetrators, while initially
acting in private capacities, were rendered agents of the Iranian State.

Legal consequences of State responsibility

Where there is a right, there is a remedy. When a State commits a breach of international law, it
becomes liable to make good the losses faced by the injured parties. The first consequence is the
cessation of the wrongful act, and the second is reparation.

Cessation of the wrongful act

International law requires the accused State to cease committing the wrongful act and to offer
appropriate assurances and guarantees on non- repetition.

Reparation

The accused party shall be responsible to make reparation to the injured parties for its wrongful
acts. The accused party is liable to make restitution, i.e., materially revert the original party back to
the same status before the wrongful act. If restitution is not possible, the accused party shall be
liable to make compensation. Compensation involves the making of monetary reparation, with an
aim of reverting the injured party to its State prior to the occurring of the act.

Another form of reparation is satisfaction. Satisfaction is considered a more appropriate remedy

than compensation, in cases of moral damage. It may include any reasonable act demanded by the
injured State, such as the acknowledgement of the wrongful character of the act, the punishment of
guilty officials, nominal damage, an official apology, etc.

Conclusion

Given the current status of the law with regard to the idea of State succession, it can be very well
inferred that the law needs a lot more evolution and clarity. Even though lately, it has been seen
that there has been some consensus on certain levels and that succession doesn’t necessarily lead to
disruption in all legal practices and methods there is a lot more work that needs to be done in this
field.

If a State breaches a treaty, and the breach causes injury to the other parties, it shall be bound to
make good the losses. Reparation is the indispensable complement of a failure of a State to apply
any of its obligations. If restitutio ad integrum is not possible, the accused party shall be liable to
make compensation.
Sources:

https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-succession/#:~:text=The%20Vienna%20Convention%20on%20State
%20Succession%20provides%20that%3A&text=Similarly%2C%20other%20forms%20of%20local,their
%20rights%2C%20duties%20and%20obligations.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-state-responsibility-international-law/

https://mslr.pubpub.org/pub/7nujyyji/release/2

https://www.jiwaji.edu/pdf/ecourse/law/8%20-%20Public%20International%20Law%20-%20State
%20Succession.pdf