We Owe You Nothing

This chapter analyses how the context of decolonization gave rise to a new discourse in international public law on the legitimacy and legality of sovereign debts contracted during the colonial times. It focuses on the international doctrine of state succession created by ‘third-world’ legal scholars within the context of the United Nations (UN), at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), and the International Law Commission (ILC). This chapter focuses in particular on the twenty-year-long effort started in the 1960s by the ILC to codify the doctrine on the law of State Succession in respect to State Property, Archives and Debts, which led to the adoption of the so-named Convention by a majority of newly independent states in 1983. In doing so, it highlights the tools that international public law gave to the global movement in favour of the cancellation of sovereign debts contracted during colonial times. The chapter is based on archival research as well as extensive interviews with the concerned lawyers, in particular, with foremost foreign policy architect and prominent international law scholar Mohamed Bedjaoui (1929–) who opposed the continuity in sovereign debt obligations that former empires wanted to impose on newly independent states.

Part III Observance and Application of Treaties, 17 Some Remarks on the Continuity of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Treaties

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588916.003.0017 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Pocar Fausto

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

International Law ◽

International Humanitarian Law ◽

Humanitarian Law ◽

International Human Rights ◽

Customary International Law ◽

Independent States ◽

State Succession ◽

International Human ◽

This chapter explores how the proliferation of newly independent states and state dissolution has resulted in greater complexity on the issue of state succession of treaty obligations. In particular, between the theories of tabula rasa succession and automatic state succession. The Human Rights Committee, the Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, and the development of customary international law all bolster the imposition of automatic state succession with respect to international human rights and humanitarian law treaties. Automatic state succession is required by the special nature of human rights and humanitarian law. Thus, once a population is granted the protection of such rights, these rights devolve with the territory and a state cannot deny them. Furthermore, other international institutions have enforced these obligations resulting in the continuity of international human rights and humanitarian law treaties.

The Work of the International Law Commission, 2007–2011: Progress and Prospects

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.5305/amerjintelaw.106.2.0322 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 106 (2) ◽

pp. 322-340 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Donald McRae

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

General Assembly ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

The Law ◽

Transboundary Aquifers ◽

Law Commission ◽

The Way

On November 17, 2011, the UN General Assembly elected the members of the International Law Commission for the next five years. In the course of the quinquennium that was completed in August 2011 with the end of the sixty-third session, the Commission concluded four major topics on its agenda: the law of transboundary aquifers, the responsibility of international organizations, the effect of armed conflicts on treaties, and reservations to treaties. It was by any standard a substantial output. The beginning of a new quinquennium now provides an opportunity to assess what the Commission has achieved, to consider the way it operates, and to reflect on what lies ahead for it.

The International Court of Justice During the Battle for International Law (1955–1975)

The Battle for International Law ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198849636.003.0011 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 235-256

Author(s):

Ingo Venzke

Keyword(s):

West Africa ◽

International Law ◽

International Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

International Court ◽

The Icj ◽

Independent States ◽

South West Africa ◽

This chapter investigates the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the battle for international law circa the years of 1955–1975. It first draws attention to newly independent states that saw the Court in its role of reinforcing international law’s colonial imprints. The chapter then focuses on the Court’s captivating highpoint during the battle for international law: its 1962 and 1966 Judgments in South West Africa, and the jarring 1966 decision which, in the eyes of many states, presented the ICJ as a ‘white man’s court’ in a white man’s world. The chapter then shows the effects of the 1966 decision in judicial elections and the quest to change the composition of the bench. Finally, the chapter argues that the present inquiry serves as a vivid reminder that international law and its institutions are the product of a veritable struggle, then as now.

Perspective of the Newly Independent States on the Binding Quality of International Law

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1093/iclqaj/14.1.121 ◽

1965 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 121-131 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

S. Prakash Sinha

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Independent States ◽

The Work of The International Law Commission on “Relations between States and International Organizations” Discontinued: an Assessment

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156500001618 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 3-16 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Peter H.F. Bekker

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Organizations ◽

Legal Status ◽

General Assembly ◽

Legal Personality ◽

Progressive Development ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

Law Commission

The UN General Assembly has recently decided to delete from the agenda of the International Law Commission the topic ‘Relations between States and International Organizations’.Over a period of 31 years, fourteen Reports by two successive Special Rapporteurs studied the topic in two parts. The First part of the topic (1963–1975) dealt with the privileges and immunities of representatives of states to international organizations, and resulted in a Convention, that has, however, not yet entered into force; the Second part of the topic (1976–1992) concentrated on the legal status and immunities of organizations themselves.The author analyzes the Draft Articles that have been submitted in the course of the ILC's study of the Second part. This is done by way of a three-step application of the functional necessity concept of organizational immunities:(1) Status, dealing with an organization's functions, legal personality and capacity-(2) Selection, defining a scale of organizational immunities for which an organization may be eligible - and (3) Scope, determining the extent of selected immunities. Finally, the author employs the two statutory functions of the ILC -the codification of international law and the progressive development of international law- to assess the contribution by the ILC to this field of international institutional law.

State Succession to Bilateral Treaties: A Few Observations on the Incoherent and Unjustifiable Solution Adopted for Secession and Dissolution of States under the 1978 Vienna Convention

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s092215651400051x ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 28 (1) ◽

pp. 13-30 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

PATRICK DUMBERRY

Keyword(s):

The Other ◽

Vienna Convention ◽

Automatic Continuity ◽

Independent State ◽

New States ◽

Independent States ◽

State Succession ◽

The One ◽

Bilateral Treaties ◽

AbstractThis article examines the question of state succession to bilateral treaties. It analyses the work of the International Law Commission undertaken in the 1970s and criticizes the solutions it has adopted in the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties for different types of state succession. I will argue that it is incoherent for the ILC to apply, on the one hand, the solution of automatic continuity for bilateral treaties in the context of secession and dissolution of states, while adopting, on the other hand, the solution of tabula rasa for Newly Independent States. In any event, it is plainly unjustifiable to apply the principle of automatic continuity to bilateral treaties. Thus, while the tabula rasa principle was adopted by the ILC for multilateral treaties to protect Newly Independent States’ right to self-determination, the same solution was chosen for bilateral treaties for different reasons. The rule of tabula rasa was adopted because of the particular nature of bilateral treaties and the basic requirement that the other party to an original treaty must consent to the continuation of that treaty with a Newly Independent State. There are simply no logical reasons as to why the tabula rasa principle adopted for Newly Independent States should not also find application for all new states. Bilateral treaties do not automatically continue to be in force as of the date of succession unless both states that are implicated explicitly (or tacitly) agree to such a continuation.

The Bosnia Genocide Case

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156508005001 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

pp. 411-428 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

C. F. AMERASINGHE

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

State Responsibility ◽

Genocide Convention ◽

Res Judicata ◽

State Succession ◽

The Individual ◽

Law Of Evidence ◽

International Law Commission

AbstractThe Bosnia Genocide case dealt with several important matters of international law, apart from the issue of responsibility proper for genocide. The Court began by addressing issues of state succession in order to identify the proper respondent. It then found that the objection to jurisdiction raised by the respondent was res judicata. It held that the Genocide Convention created state responsibility in addition to international criminal responsibility of the individual. The contribution of the judgment to the law of evidence, in particular with reference to the standard and methods of proof, is significant. Finally, the Court applied the codification by the International Law Commission of attribution in state responsibility to the situation before it in deciding that the genocidal acts subject of the case were not attributable to Serbia, while also holding that Serbia was, nevertheless, responsible for omitting to prevent genocide.

Decolonization and Sovereign Debt

Sovereign Debt Diplomacies ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198866350.003.0010 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 213-231

Author(s):

Michael Waibel

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Sovereign Debt ◽

Complex State ◽

Independent State ◽

Successor State ◽

State Succession ◽

The Law

The complex state succession cases arising from decolonization generated intense debates within legal circles. This chapter examines the tension between two stylized schools on state succession into debt: the universal succession and clean slate theories. Universal succession refers to the automatic and complete assumption of the colonial power’s rights and obligations by the newly independent state as they relate to its territory. According to the competing clean slate theory, the former colonial power’s obligations (including debts) as they relate to the territory of the newly independent state are extinguished on independence. Because these obligations are personal to a state, they lapsed on independence. The successor state thus starts life with a clean slate. This chapter provides historical insights into this legal controversy by focusing on the two scholars and practitioners of international law who embodied these two schools of thought, Judge Mohamed Bedjaoui and Professor Daniel Patrick O’Connell. We show how the fundamental disagreements between the two schools (and their radically different implications for the conditions under which colonial entities can achieve independence) have left the law on state succession in flux. Ultimately, the solutions adopted in the decolonization context and in later succession disputes remained highly case-specific and typically involved an agreement between the states concerned.

Part I Prologue, 2 The International Law Commission’s Work on the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)

10.1093/law/9780198823292.003.0002 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Kittichaisaree Kriangsak

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Working Group ◽

Legal Issues ◽

General Assembly ◽

Final Report ◽

History Of ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

Law Commission

This chapter explains the work by the UN International Law Commission on the topic ‘Obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare)’ from 2006 to 2014, culminating in the Final Report of the Commission on this topic which was taken note of by the UN General Assembly in 2014. All the legal issues relevant to the obligation are identified and, where appropriate, analysed. The drafting history of the Report by the Working Group under the present author's chairmanship is elucidated in details — and this is the only place where this drafting history can be found.

The Battle for International Law

10.1093/oso/9780198849636.001.0001 ◽

2019 ◽

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Institutional Environment ◽

International Economic Law ◽

International Legal Order ◽

Independent States ◽

Legal Structures ◽

New Vision ◽

Western Hegemony ◽

The Relationship ◽

The so-called ‘decolonization era’ witnessed a fundamental challenge to (legalized) Western hegemony through a new vision of the institutional environment and political economy of the world. It is during this era, arguably couched between classic European imperialism and a new form of US-led Western hegemony, that fundamental legal debates took place over a new international legal order for a decolonized world. These debates consist in essence of a battle that was fought by diplomats, lawyers and scholars over, in particular, the premises and principles of international law. In a moment of relative weakness of European powers, ‘newly independent states’ and international lawyers from the South fundamentally challenged traditional Western perceptions of international legal structures engaging in fundamental controversies over a new international law. This book argues that international legal structures in many areas of international relations, including international economic law, the use of force, international humanitarian, the law of the sea, and human rights have been transformed during this era. The effect of this transition, however, was enabling the change from classic European imperialism to new forms of US-led Western hegemony. It draws on Koselleck’s Sattelzeit concept—bridging two different forms of global Western dominance—in which fundamental concepts of international law were re-imagined, politicized, and transformed. All aspects of this battle are of vital importance for any future project aiming to address and alter the relationship between international law and fundamental inequalities in this world.