|Legal Service India - India-Pakistan State Succession Scenario- A Precedent|
|Legal Advice | Find a lawyer | Constitutional law | Judgments | forms | PIL | family law | Cyber Law | Law Forum | Income-Tax | Consumer laws | Company laws|
|Latest Articles | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05|
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
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 PrecedentThe 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 RepublicThe 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 ZanzibarThe 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 seatIn 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 GermanyThe 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 DivorceOn 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.
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.
22) Supra., n.58, pp. 289-90.
24) U.N. General Assembly, Official Records., 2nd Session, 1947, 6th Committee, 308-11.
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).
The author can be reached at: email@example.com / Print This Article
• Know your legal options
• Information about your legal issues
Call us at Ph no: 9650499965
Copyright Registration Online
Right from your Desktop...
*Call us at Ph no: 9891244487
Legal AdviceGet legal advice from Highly qualified lawyers within 48hrs.
with complete solution.
lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Nashik
Protect your website
lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
lawyers in Dimapur
Trademark Registration in India
lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Guwahati
Protect your website
Transfer of Petition
|Lawyers in India - Search by City|
lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Agra
lawyers in Siliguri
Lawyers in Auckland
lawyers in Dhaka
lawyers in Dubai
lawyers in London
lawyers in New York
lawyers in Toronto
lawyers in Sydney
lawyers in Los Angeles
Cheque bounce laws
Lok Adalat, legal Aid and PIL
About Us |
Juvenile Laws |
Divorce by mutual consent |
| Submit article |
Lawyers Registration |
legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) © 2000-2015
ISBN No: 978-81-928510-0-6