State Succession to State Contracts: A New Framework of Analysis for an Unexplored Question

Author(s):  
Patrick Dumberry

Abstract This article examines the surprisingly unexplored question of State succession to State contracts. It argues that the successor State is not bound by such contracts. The article puts forward a new framework of analysis with regards to this question emphasizing on the importance of two elements. First, the solution depends on the type of succession involved. The analysis shows that, while the principle of succession is firmly established for certain types (cession of territory, unification, integration), it is not for others (secession and dissolution). Second, the solution depends on a number of different factors and circumstances, including the existence of a ‘territorial nexus’ between a contract and the successor State, whether the contract was signed by an organ of a territorial unit of the predecessor State which has a structural continuity with the successor State, and the need to avoid any situation of unjust enrichment.

2021 ◽  
pp. 213-231
Author(s):  
Michael Waibel

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 340-354
Author(s):  
Naiade el-Khoury

International practice indicates a tendency that the obligations under human rights treaties continue under the law of State succession. The successor State is thus bound to respect the rights previously granted under a human rights treaty to the inhabitants of a territory it has assumed responsibility for. However, the successor State is not automatically party to the human rights treaty which its predecessor was a party to. As such, the continuity of human rights obligations has not occurred ipso iure. Yet, States have acquiesced to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and accepted their human rights obligations retroactively upon the ratification of the human rights treaties.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas J. Hamilton ◽  
Michael T. Vale ◽  
Michelle L. Hughes ◽  
Paige M. Pasta ◽  
Katherine Judge

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Martins ◽  
Kevin Brown ◽  
Orlando Pereira ◽  
Isabel Martins

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-246
Author(s):  
Paul R. Sanberg ◽  
Karen J.L. Burg

Universities have long recognized the need to create pathways for ideas and new technologies to advance from academic labs to market; however, the decentralized and haphazard nature of American innovation means that some discoveries may be neglected. In order to more effectively address the issues with innovation, a research team led by Steven Currall produced a new framework in the book Organized Innovation: A Blueprint for Renewing America's Prosperity. Because of the current drive of universities to increase innovation, economic development, and corporate partnerships, we thought it was timely to revisit this book and offer commentary on its lessons for navigating these demands.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document