|
Introduction
International law defines a succession of States as "the
replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the
international relations of territory."(1) More simply, State
succession involves the transfer of a territory from one State
(the predecessor State) to another State (the successor State).
According to T.T. Poulose (2), the analogy of state succession is
confounded by its association with the metaphysical reality of the
state, namely, the state personality. Oppenheim expressed a
similar view:
A succession of International
persons occurs when one or more international persons take the
place of another international person, in consequence of certain
changes in the latter's condition.
As such, State succession may
take different forms:
1. A State may break up and disappear giving way to the emergence
of two or more new States (former USSR: 1991; Yugoslavia:
1991-1992; Czechoslovakia: 1993);
2. A portion of the territory
of a State may secede or separate and become the seat of a new
State (Pakistan from India: 1947; Bangladesh from Pakistan: 1971;
Eritrea from Ethiopia: 1993);
3. A colony may become
independent and give rise to a newly independent State (starting
with Haiti in 1804);
4. Two or more States may
merge to create a single new State (the merger of Syria and Egypt
to form the United Arab Republic between 1958 and 1961);
5. A State may be taken over
and assimilated by another State (absorption of the German
Democratic Republic by the Federal Republic of Germany: 1990);
6. A portion of the territory
of a State may be transferred from one State to another State by
way of cession: such was the case in the purchase of Louisiana by
the United States from France in 1803. As a form of State
succession, the cession of a territory from one State to another
was quite current at the time. It often accompanied the conclusion
of a peace treaty between the Predecessor State and the Successor
State.
Whenever a member-State breaks apart, there are several possible
ways the United Nations could respond. First, drawing upon the
traditional rules of treaty succession, it could permit all of the
resulting States to succeed to the former State's membership, that
is, to become automatically U.N. members. Second, it could require
that all of the resulting States apply for membership as new
members before they are allowed to participate in the United
Nations. Finally, it could allow one of the resulting States to
continue the former State's membership while requiring the others
to apply for new membership. For a variety of reasons detailed
below, the U.N. has rejected the first option and opts to follow
either the second or third options depending on the circumstances.
The India-Pakistan Scenario
United Nations first faced such a situation just two years after
its founding, on August 15, 1947, when Great Britain granted
independence to British India, an original member of the United
Nations, and divided its territory into the separate Dominions of
India and Pakistan. (3)
Prior to India's independence, the sub-continent of India
consisted of two distinct entities: British India & Princely
States. The Indian Independence Act, 1947, (4) provided for the
fragmentation of the sub-continent into three separate entities
viz., (1) the Dominion of India, (2) the Dominion of Pakistan, and
(3) the Princely States. The Dominion of India had been defined in
the Act as the territory of the old British India minus the
territory detached from it for the creation of Pakistan. The
Dominion of Pakistan would consist of East Bengal, West Punjab,
Sind, the Chief Commissioner's Province of British Baluchistan and
the North-West Frontier Province. The Princely States had the
option either to join India or Pakistan on the basis of
geographical contiguity, composition of population and the
economic factors. The underlying assumption of the Act, however,
was that the Dominion of India would be regarded as the parent
State and would, therefore, continue the personality of "India".
(5) But the Act does not expressly say so.
So the dispute arose whether both the dominions will be treated as
successor states or not. The basic problem, therefore, was to
examine whether the Dominions of India and Pakistan are both
successor States of "India" or whether Pakistan alone is the
successor state. (6)
First Issue - The Dominion of India continues
India's
international personality and Pakistan alone is a successor state.
The British Authorities drafted the Indian Independence Bill under
the assumption that the Dominion of India would continue
India's
international personality was apparent from the statement of the
secretary of State, Lord Listowel at a press conference in London
on July 4, 1947:
?The name ?India? has certain
practical advantages, as the name has been used in treaties and
international documents. Retaining the name India, will make it
easier for the Dominion to continue as a member of the United
Nations.? (7)
An Expert Committee on Foreign Relations was appointed by the
Partition Council in pursuance to its objective to arrange for the
division of the assets and liabilities and other related matters
as envisaged by the Government of India while constituting the
Partition Council. The Report of the committee stated the position
more explicitly: the true position is that certain parts of
India have become separated from the main body which continues the
international personality of present India. Partition will not
result in the extinction of the international personality of
India.(8)
This view was also accepted by the Steering Committee in its note
on the juristic position regarding India?s international
personality and treaty obligations prepared for the consideration
of the Partition Council. According to the report the new dominion
of India continues the international personality of existing India
and that she will succeed as a matter of international law to
membership of San Francisco Charter. The Steering committee
concluded that:
The Dominion known as India
will not only in name but also in fact remain identifiable with
the international person known as India an all the obligations and
rights of India will continue to be discharged or asserted by the
dominion of India.(9)
The Partition Council approved the Report of the Steering
Committee. Thus the view of the Indian Dominion and the United
Kingdom that the independence act did not affect
India's
international personality but only introduced a change in the form
of its government. (10)
The General Assembly of the United Nations on an appeal made by
Pakistan referred the issue to the First Committee.
Representatives of different countries while expressing there
views over the issue remained divided. The First Committee
requested the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly to
offer its comments. (11)
On behalf of the Sixth Committee, Kaeckenbeeck, the Rapporteur,
stated in his report to the First Committee qua the legal position
of India's international personality as follows:
1. That, as a general rule, it
is in conformity with legal principles to presume that a state
which is a member of the united nations does not cease to be a
member simply because its constitution or its frontier has been
subjected to changes, and that the extinction of the frontier has
been subjected to changes, and that the extinction of the state as
a legal personality recognized in the international order must be
shown before its rights and obligations can be considered thereby
to have ceased to exist.
2. That when a new state is
created, whatever may be the territory and the populations which
it comprises and whether or not they formed part of a State Member
of the United Nations, it cannot under the system of the Charter
claim the status of a member of the United Nations unless it has
been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions
of the Charter.
3. Beyond that each case must
be judged according to its merits. (12)
In the context of the India/Pakistan case, the first of these
principles suggests that there is a presumption against treating a
State's U.N. membership as extinguished despite the division or
dismemberment of that State. The second principle, analogous to
the rule of primogeniture, suggests that no more than one State
can claim to be the continuation of a U.N. member-State that has
undergone such changes; all other States formed in the division or
dismemberment must formally apply for new membership. The third
principle seeks to preserve the political flexibility of the
United Nations in responding to future membership questions.
United Nations anticipated the immerging furor of the partition.
It decided to publish the opinion of Dr. Ivan Kerno, the Assistant
Secretary-General for Legal Affairs. The position was taken as
follows (13):
1. It was a case in which a
certain territory of an existing international entity had broken
away and constituted itself into a separate state. This view
formed the basis of all subsequent developments in the United
Nations.
2. India?s membership of the
United Nations remained unaffected. It was enough if its
delegation was asked to present fresh credentials in view of
certain basic constitutional changes in that country. Pakistan was
a new state and it was to apply for membership in accordance with
the provisions of Article 4 of the U.N. Charter.
Second Issue- The Dominions of India and Pakistan are both
successor States of ?India? whose international personality
disappeared with the creation of the two Dominions.
Pakistan apposed the view
taken by United Nations and India qua its international
personality. In its view, both the Dominions were co-successors of
India whose international personality disappeared with the
creation of the two Dominions. (14) Pakistan through its
representative made a representation to the United Nations
expressing their view that Pakistan effectively fall under the
purview of the successor issue. In effect Pakistan is not a new
member but a continuing one. In as much as Pakistan had been a
part of India, it was in effect, under the latter name a signatory
to the treaty of Versailles and an original member of League of
Nations. In the same sense, Pakistan as a part of India
participated in the San Francisco Conference in 1945 and became a
signatory to the United Nations Charter. Therefore, Pakistan is
not a new member of the United Nations but a co-successor to a
member state, which was one of the founders of the organization.
After formally raising the issue in the United Nations, Pakistani
representatives attempted to press their views in the Expert
Committee on Foreign Relations set up by the Partition Council.
Referring to the views of those members representing Pakistan in
the Committee.
The Representatives of Pakistan vis-a-vis Mr. Ikarmullah and Lt.
Col. Iskander Mirza presented a report to the Committee giving
there refusal to accept the view that the Dominion of India alone
will continue the international personality of the existing India.
They strongly believed that on the 15th August two independent
Dominions of equal international status would come into existence
as successors to the existing Government of India, which will
disappear altogether as an entity. It was further buttressed by
the fact that two governments are functioning in the country, one
for Pakistan and one for India with equal status. (15)
Pakistan also did not
subscribed to the Indian view in the Steering committee. Mr.
Mohammad Ali Pakistan's representative put forth the Pakistani
view which was expressed in a note of the steering committee that:
Mr. Ali considers that the
present Government of India will disappear altogether as an entity
and will be succeeded by two independent Dominions of equal
international status both of whom will be eligible to lay claims
to the rights and obligations of the present Government of India.
(16)
In the Sixth Committee when
the issue was raised, Mr. Acre, the Argentinean representative
observed that India and Pakistan were successor States of the
Indian Empire, which had disappeared on August 15, 1947. He wanted
that both of them should be treated as original members of the
United Nations. He was extremely critical of the legal opinion
given by the U.N. Secretariat. France, Iraq, Chile and Turkey
readily supported the stand taken by Arce. (17)
During the Security Council's
debate, France supported Pakistan's argument for automatic
membership, but most members took the position that Pakistan
should be formally admitted to membership. (18) After the remarks
of the Polish delegate stating that this case should no be made a
precedent for automatic admittance to membership of the U.N. which
deprives the Security Council of the privilege of making
recommendations with regard to new Members (19), the Security
Council transmitted the resolution to admit Pakistan to the
General Assembly, and also referred it to the First Committee.
The claim of Pakistan was not
endorsed by the then Acting Secretary General of the United
Nations. He could neither share its views about the international
personality of India, nor accede to its request for original
membership in the U.N. (20) The U.N. Secretariat held that the
Pakistani claim was untenable. (21)
The
Observation and the Decision
It was against this background that the Partition council was
obliged to decide the question. In the meeting, the Chairman, Lord
Mountbatten, made two points which were of crucial importance:
firstly, he had been telegraphically informed by the Secretary of
State for India that ?it was essential for Pakistan to apply for
membership of the U.N.O. before the 10th of August so that her
application could be considered at the next meeting in September?,
(22) secondly, though His Majesty's
Government were not anxious to interfere in what they considered
to be a domestic matter between India and Pakistan, yet
there was a grave objection to
India's national identity being extinguished by reason of the
partition.(23)
This was followed by the
conclusion of an agreement known as the Agreement as to the
Devolution of International Rights and obligations upon the
Dominions of India and Pakistan. It is significant that
this agreement was reached on August 6, promulgated on August 14,
and communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
on August 27. The Governor-General had promulgated the agreement
as a schedule to the Indian Independence (International
Agreements) Order, 1947, (24) which laid down that
the agreement set out in
the schedule to this order shall, as from the appointed day, have
the effect of an agreement duly made between the Dominion of India
and the Dominion of Pakistan. Section 2 of the agreement
unambiguously stated that:
1. Membership of all
international organizations together with the rights and
obligations attaching to such membership will devolve solely upon
the Dominion of India
2. The Dominion of Pakistan
will take such steps as may be necessary to apply for membership
of such international organisations as it chooses to join. (25)
In Darbai v. Air India Limited
(26), an Indian court declared that there was no change in India's
international position even after the attainment of Dominion
status. It said that if British India was regarded as a High
Contracting Party to the Warsaw Convention then
the attainment of
that state as a recognition of political maturity to dominionhood
can obviously not affect her status vis-a-vis the covenant with
the other Covenanting parties.
What emerges form the above analysis is the distinctly
evolutionary character of India's personality. By a continuous
process of internal constitutional evolution to perfect Statehood
in 1947, the anomaly ascribed to India's international personality
disappeared. (27) But India unlike other successor States had to
go through a double succession, one pertaining to its
international rights and duties prior to 1919 and the other
concerning its internal sovereignty after its independence in
1947. In the case of India, the question of succession to most of
its rights and liabilities arose only after 1947 when India became
a fully sovereign state. This is, therefore, not an ordinary type
of succession and it cannot be fully explained by traditional
rules of state succession. This kind of double succession, which
is quite extraordinary, can be better understood by the
application of the concept of partial succession. According to the
already mentioned concept, India succeeded to its international
legal rights and duties first, and after a period of time
succeeded to its internal legal rights and liabilities when it
obtained complete sovereignty through gradual, constitutional
changes.
Clearly, the importance of the
India Independence (International Agreements) Order (28) is
immense for this study. It was admitted even by Pakistanis that
it may be said and doubtless with much force, that having once
concurred on the publication of this order, it is no longer open
to Pakistan to complain of the situation thus created whereby it
became necessary for Pakistan to apply afresh to all those
international organizations whose membership she desired.
But the agreement was reached and issued under a special set of
circumstance. The allegation that it can be
said with perfect truth that Pakistan concurred under duress
(29) was no doubt
untrue but the circumstances were such that it was not very easy
for it to reject outright the view which His Majesty's Government
had come to take.
Therefore, following the
theory of state succession, (30) Pakistan would be regarded as
having broken off and become a new state and, as a new non-member
state, must seek admission to the United nations pursuant to the
provisions of Article 4 of the Charter. While India would thus
stand as the successor state, there was precedent in diplomatic
practice that India should be requested to furnish her
representatives with new credentials issued by the proper
authorities of the Dominion of India.
The controversy of the
India-Pakistan state Succession scenario resulted in sea of
questions of which some were answered, some were left un-answered
and others that were answered in part. In the next chapter we will
see how the U.N. took up the issue of the Indian States and
decided the future disputes. The next discussion will focus on the
relevance of the Indian issue in context of different succession
situations. How the position of Indo-Pak is similar to some cases
and different from other is discussed at length in the next
chapter. To be a precedent the said issue must be raised, observed
and differentiated by catena of future cases.
Impact of India-Pakistan issue- A Precedent
The questions introduced by the Indian dispute strongly influenced
the results reached in the Syria, Somalia, Tanzania, Bangladesh,
Russia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Germany, et. al. cases and
which are likely to guide the organisations response to questions
of succession to membership of the United Nations in future.
Secession of Syria from the United Republic
The question that first arose in 1947 saw a similarity some
fourteen years later with the secession of Syria from the United
Republic, which had been formed in 1958 as a result of the Merger
of Egypt & Syria. When those two countries in February 1958 united
to become a single state, the foreign minister of the United Arab
Republic stated that the Union henceforth is a single member of
the United Nations. (31) Syria's secession in September 1961 did
not affect the UAR's membership. (32) The Syrian case was akin to
India as emphasis in both were on continuity rather then
disruption.
The
Formation of the Republic of Somalia
Article 4 of the Somali Act of Union provided that all rights and
obligations of the independent Governments of Somaliland and
Somalia were to be deemed to have been transferred to and accepted
by the Somali Republic. On 24 January 1961 the United States and
Italy agreed that the Technical Co-operation Agreement of 1954 be
succeeded to be by Republic of Somali, and the latter on 4
February 1961 acknowledged that the agreement should be considered
as subsisting between itself and the United States. (33) The
succession to the agreement by Somali was inspired by the
succession of India to the agreements entered into by British
India before independence.
The
Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar
The United State of Tanganyika and Zanzibar (Tanzania) declared in
1964 that it is now a single member of the united Nations bound by
the provisions of the Charter, and that all international treaties
and agreements in force between the Republic of Tanganyika or the
People's Republic of Zanzibar and other states or international
organisations will, to the extent that their implementation is
consistent with the constitutional position established by the
Articles of Union, remain in force within the regional limits
prescribed on their conclusion and in accordance with the
principles of international law. The Tanzanian merger drawn its
similarity from the merger of Indian States in India in 1947.
Successful Split of East & West Pakistan
Likewise when Bangladesh in 1971 seceded from Pakistan, the
latter's membership in the UN remained unaffected by the loss of
its eastern province, while Bangladesh later applied for and
obtained UN membership in 1974.
Russia's Succession to the Soviet seat
In many ways, the India/Pakistan precedent and Russia's succession
to the Soviet seat present factually similar cases. India could
easily be characterized as the continuation of British India
because it retained seventy-five percent of the territory and
eighty percent of the population of British India, it kept the
name India, and it kept the seat of the government and virtually
the same governmental machinery. Moreover, on its face, the
devolution agreement between India and Pakistan seemed to clarify
that the two States regarded India as solely entitled to succeed
to the British India seat. (34)
Similarly, Russia which had three-fourths of the former Soviet
Union's
land area, more than half of the Soviet Union's population of 280
million, most of the Soviet Union's resources, nuclear weapons,
nuclear
assembly plants, and its army, whose territory contained the seat
of the
former Soviet Government, which had taken over most of the former
Soviet
Government institutions and agencies, and which had obtained the
formal
agreement of the other republics that it should take over the
Soviet
seat in the United Nations, (35) could make a compelling case that
it
should be treated as the continuation of the Soviet Union just as
India
was treated as the continuation of British India. Moreover, Russia
could argue that, because two of the larger republics --
Byelorussia and
Ukraine, had been independent members of the United Nations since
its
inception, the residual Soviet Union, for purposes of U.N.
membership, has always consisted overwhelmingly of Russia. Even
history could be used to bolster Russia's position: when Czarist
Russia became the Soviet Union after the revolution of October
1917, the international community insisted that the Soviet Union
was not a new State, but simply a new regime. (36)
The Russians claim to be the continuation of the Soviet Union goes
back
to the theoretical dichotomy between a breakaway of one part of a
state
from another and a complete dissolution. Russia claimed to be the
continuation of the Soviet Union for all purposes. Some countries
accepted this. Some, like the United States, did not, accepting
continuity for some purposes but not others. Thus, in the United
Nations, the United States and the others endorse the continuation
of
Russia and the Permanent Member seat on the Security Council. But
in
other organizations, the possibility exists for another country to
claim
to be the continuity, depending on the particular situation.
The Exclusion of the 'New Yugoslavia'
The Yugoslavia situation and the earlier precedent, however,
proved far
from a perfect match. In contrast to India, Serbia and Montenegro
together do not comprise a majority, let alone a substantial
majority, of Yugoslavia's land, population, or resources. Moreover, unlike
India,
no devolution agreement existed between the republics of the
former
Yugoslavia providing that the FRY shall continue the former
Yugoslavia's
membership in the United Nations. Indeed, the other former
republics
were quick to assert that Yugoslavia had dissolved and that the
FRY
should not be entitled to the former Yugoslavia's seat at the
United
Nations. Finally, by undertaking and supporting aggressive actions
in
Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia, the FRY provided the members of the
United Nations with a strong political reason to block the FRY's
effort
to assume the Yugoslavia seat. (37)
A comparison between the Yugoslavian situation and the Indian
precedent
provides a framework for assessing that claim. The Serbian and
Montenegrin Republics claimed to be the continuity of Yugoslavia-
The
international community rejected this claim. But, somewhat
paradoxically, the Security Council finally decided, with respect
to
membership, that although Serbia and Montenegro could not continue
automatically the membership of the former Socialist Republic of
Yugoslavia, they should apply for UN membership but should not
participate in the work of the General Assembly. This is based on
a
finding that the claim to be the continuity has not been generally
accepted. The General Assembly proceeded in keeping with the
Security
Council recommendation, but no one was quite sure what the
resolution
meant. It went to the legal counsel of the United Nations, who
determined that this did not terminate the membership of
Yugoslavia,
even though it said very clearly that Yugoslavia has ceased to
exist.
All the General Assembly decision did was to keep Serbia and
Montenegro
from participating in the General Assembly and subsidiary organs.
This result is not consistent with the U.S. position, which is to
reject
continuity. However, there is a very strong principle that the
United
States has been adhering to: membership questions in the United
Nations
should be decided by the General Assembly on recommendations of
the
Security Council. So, until the Security Council and General
Assembly
speak again to this matter, the situation will not change.
For nearly fifty years, the United Nations has approached
succession to
membership as a question of continuity. Since deciding in 1947
that
both India and Pakistan could not succeed to the British India
seat, it
has never looked back. One U.N. specialized agency, however, has
recently departed from the continuity theory and the
India/Pakistan
precedent. While the United Nations was wrestling with the
question of
whether the FRY could be deemed the continuity of Yugoslavia, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) decided to allow Bosnia,
Croatia,
Slovenia, Macedonia, and the FRY all to succeed to the membership
of the
former Yugoslavia. (38) Under this approach, "the successor will
be
considered to have been a member without interruption since the
dissolution of the SFRY and to have continued, for its share, the
membership of the SFRY in the IMF."(39)
The basic elements of statehood are population, territory,
government,
and capacity to enter into international relations. Russia shared
these
attributes with the Soviet Union, as had India with respect to the
Indian Union. The rump Yugoslavia, which did not possess these
qualifications, claimed that the criteria for state continuity
were
"significant portions of the territory which continues its
existence; a
major portion of the population; an independent government and
organization." (40) Although possession of a majority of the
population
and territory and a virtually identical government have not always
been
prerequisites for international recognition of successionist
states, the
Russian and Serbian cases show that the better the claim to
continuity
of statehood, the higher the chance of acceptance by the
international
system and the United Nations. The principles of U.N. Charter
adopted
through application of the position of British India have thus
provided
a way for the international system to evaluate the claims of
successionist states. (41)
The unique case of Reunification of Germany
The reunification of Germany was a case of incorporating the GDR
into
the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time, the territory
of the
GDR left the block of the socialist countries, the Warsaw Pact,
the
COMECON and other pre-unification commitments, and was integrated
into
the European Communities, NATO, and a host of commitments of the
Federal
Republic. But the reunification of Germany had been carefully
prepared
by a series of mutual agreements: the Unification Treaty, the
Treaty of
September 12, 1990 on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
(the
"2 + 4 Treaty"), (42) and a series of bilateral treaties. In
addition,
the consultations on the GDR treaties described above served to
solve
the remaining problems. (43) The Indian issue acted as a precedent
in
this case indirectly. It provided a platform to the U.N. to
interpret
the issue of Germany in different fashion.
The Czechoslovakia Split,
"The Velvet Divorce"
On January 1, 1993, in what has become known as the "velvet
divorce,"
the country of Czechoslovakia divided into the newly independent
Czech
Republic and Slovak Republic. Following the India precedent, the
Czech
Republic that made up a substantial majority of the territory,
population, and resources of the former Czechoslovakia had a
strong case
for continuing Czechoslovakia's U.N. membership. (44) Two weeks
before
the division, however, Czechoslovakia's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
informed the United Nations that "the Czech and Slovak Federal
Republic
[CSFR] as well as the CSFR membership of the United Nations will
cease
to exist on December 31, 1992. Both successor States, the Czech
Republic and the Slovak Republic are determined to apply for the
U.N.
membership in the very first days of 1993." (45)
Like India, the Czech and Slovak republics had entered into a
devolution
agreement. Their agreement, however, did not provide for
Czechoslovakia's membership in the United Nations and related
bodies to
devolve on one of the two new States. Rather, it purported to
divide up
Czechoslovakia's membership between the two.
The crux of the matter was that each of them chose to apply as a
new
member to the United Nations. Theoretically, this could have been
done
in a different way and people could have had opinions about
whether that
was legal or not. But, since the two chose to apply separately, no
question was raised. Having done that, they went to the
International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and said they had agreed that
the
Czech Republic would be the continuity of Czechoslovakia for the
ICAO.
It didn't matter in terms of membership, because either could
become a
member rather easily, but there was a Council seat that required
an
election that was held by Czechoslovakia, and Czechoslovakia had
some
claim to be the continuity in this context--it had all the air
traffic
control facilities and, it, rather than Slovakia, had been
involved with
ICAO. However, because it was in the UN system and because the
Czech and
Slovak Republics had already made a contrary choice in the United
Nations, in the end everyone decided that they both had to
reapply.
These examples fortify the position of India-Pakistan issue as a
true
precedent for the establishment of a definitive rule for state
succession by the United Nations. The principles of the Sixth
Committee
report and the questions raised in the India-Pakistan scenario
considered, accepted, challenged & modified. As international law
has
gained new force, these factors have gained new vigor.
References
1) Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties,
17
International Legal Materials, 1978, p.12. (hereinafter Vienna I).
Also
See- Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Property,
Archives and Debts, 1983, 22 International Legal Materials, 1983,
p.23.
(hereinafter Vienna II).
2) T.T. Poulose, State Succession in International Law- Study of
India,
Pakistan, Ceylon & Burma, 1974, p. 6.
3) Oscar Schachter, The Development of International Law Through
the
Legal Opinions of the United Nations Secretariat, Brit. Y. B.
Intel L.,
1948, pp. 91, 101.
4) The Government of India Act, 10 & 11 Geo. VI. Ch. 30., 1935.
5) Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates (Commons), Vol. 439
(1946-47),
July 10, col. 2448. (As stated by Clement Atlee in the British
Parliament.)
6) T.T. Poulose, op. cit., p. 12
7) Partition Proceedings, (1949), Vol. III, p. 206.
8) Supra., n. 53.
9) Ibid., p. 290.
10) U.N. Document, A/C. 6/162, October 6, 1947. pp. 307-8. (The
annex
6b, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Sixth Committee).
11) U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Second Session, Sixth
Committee, 1947, pp. 37-8.
12) U.N. Document, A/C. 6/162, op. cit., pp. 307-8. See Also- T.T.
Poulose, op. cit. p. 17.
13) K. P. Misra, Succession of States:
Pakistan's Membership in
the
United Nations 3 Can.Y.B. Int l.L.J., 1965, p. 281.
14) U.N. Document, A/399, September 30, 1947, General Assembly,
Official
Records, Second Session, Plenary Meetings of the General Assembly,
92nd
Plenary Meetings, p. 317.
15) Poulose, op. cit., p. 18.
16) Partition Proceedings, op. cit., pp. 206-7.
17) U.N.G.A., Official Records, Sixth Committee, op. cit., pp.
308-10.
Also See- De Muralt, The Problem of State Succession with regard
to
Treaties, 49 AJIL, 1955, pp. 590-591.
18) O?Connell, op. cit., p.174.
19) Supra., n. 31.
20) U.N. Document A/A. 6/162, October 6, 1947.
21) Ibid.
22) Supra., n.58, pp. 289-90.
23) Ibid.
24) U.N. General Assembly, Official Records., 2nd Session, 1947,
6th
Committee, 308-11.
25) Ibid.
26) International Law Reports, 1953, p. 44. Also See- Lionel H. Laing,
Admission of Indian States to the United Nations?, 43 AJIL, 1949,
pp.
144-55.; Russell, H. Filchenfield, New States in the Indian
Realm?, 46 AJIL, 1952, pp. 451-63.; D.K. Sen, ?The Partition of India and
Succession in International Law, The Indian Law Review, 1947, pp.
190-201.; Upendera Baxi, Law of Treaties in the Contemporary
Practice
of India, The Indian Yearbook of International Affairs, 1965, pp.
156-7.
27) Poulose, op. cit., p. 29.
28) Indian Independence (International Agreements) Order, 1947.
29) K.P. Misra, op. cit., p.291. Also See-?Admission of Pakistan
to the
United Nations, Pakistan Horizon, 1956, p. 95.
30) United Nations General Assembly, Summary Record, 43rd Meeting,
Sixth
Committee, 2nd Session, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/Sr.43, 1947, p. 4.
31) Cortan, Some Legal Aspects of the Formation of the United
Arab
Republic and the United Arab States, 8 Intel Comp. L. Q., 1959,
pp.
363-4.
32) Young, The State of Syria: Old or New, 56 AJIL, 1962, pp.
482-8.
33) O'Connell, op. cit., p.100.
34) Michael P. Scharf, Musical chairs: Dissolution of States and
Membership in the United Nations, 28 Cor. Intel. L.J., 1995, p.
25.
35) Yehuda Z. Blum, Russia Takes Over the Soviet
Union's Seat at
the
United Nations, 3 Eur. J.Int l. L., 1992, p. 345. Also See- Rein
Mullerson, The Continuity and Succession of States, by Reference
to the
Former USSR and Yugoslavia?, 42 Intel Comp. L. Q., 1993, p. 476.
36) Supra., n. 42, p. 25.
37) David O. Lloyd, ?Succession, Secession, and State Membership
in the
United Nations, 26 N. Y. U. J. Int?l. L. & Pol ., 1994, pp. 761,
781,
782. Also See- Michael P. Scharf, Musical chairs: Dissolution of
States
and Membership in the United Nations, 28 Cor. Intel. L.J., 1995,
pp.
29, 54.
38) International Monetary Fund, Press Release No. 92/92, 1992 p.
1 (on
file with the Cornell International Law Journal). The IMF required
only
that each republic agree to the division of the former
Yugoslavia's
assets and liabilities arrived at by the IMF, namely: Bosnia --
13.20%;
Croatia -- 28.49%; Macedonia -- 5.40%; Slovenia -- 16.39%; and FRY
--
36.52%.
39) Paul R. Williams, State Succession and the International
Financial
Institutions: Political Criteria v. Protection of Outstanding
Financial
Obligations, 43 Int'l & Comp. L.Q., 1994, pp. 776, 803.
40) Statement of Vladimir Jovanovic, Serbian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, at the Conference on Yugoslavia (Mar. 9, 1992), Rev.
Int'l
Aff., Apr. 1, 1992, pp. 14, 15.
41) David Lloyd, op. cit., p. 784.
42) Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, 29 I.L.M.,
Sept. 12, 1990, p. 1186. (hereinafter "2+4 Treaty").
43) Hubert Beemelmans, State Succession in International law:
Remarks
on Recent Theory & State Praxis, 15 B.U. Int l. L. J., 1997, p.
109.
44) Mary Battiata, Czechs, Slovaks Set 'Velvet Divorce, Wash.
Post,
Aug. 28, 1992, p. 25.
45) Department of State Cable No. Prague 10971 (Dec. 17, 1992)
(captioned "Text of Czechoslovak Diplomatic Note on UN Membership
for
Czech and Slovak Republics") (on file with the Cornell
International Law
Journal).
|
India-Pakistan
State Succession Scenario- A Precedent
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: vkvora@legalserviceindia.com /
