Development of the concept of state responsibility in succession situations in the light of draft articles of the UN international law commission

INTRODUCTION. The article considers the concept of a succession of states with regard to the responsibility of states, which has become the subject of discussion by the UN International Law Commission and the preparation of the relevant draft articles. The author studies the methodology of considering the topic with a view to substantiating the idea of transferability of rights and obligations in the context of the responsibility of states, which is to a certain extent contradictory, due to the limited practice of states in this area. In this regard, questions are raised as to whether the new project can solve the problem of fill ing the gap between the regimes of state succession and state responsibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The author made a theoretical and empirical analysis of the main sources of international law, the materials of the work of the UN International Law Commission: reports of the special reporter on the succession of states regarding state responsibility, comments and observations of states, state practice, and the practice of international courts on the subject matter. Methodological foundation of research is composed by general scientific (analysis method, synthesis method, systems approach) and private-law methods of obtaining knowledge (formal legal, comparative legal).

RESEARCH RESULTS. Based on the study, it is argued that the key ILC approach – the general rule of the lack of succession in respect of international responsibility is not absolute in nature, also contains potentially conflicting aspects. The author comes to the conclusion that the concept of transferability of rights and obligations in the context of state responsibility is to a certain extent contradictory, due to the limited practice of states in this area.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. This article highlights a number of problematic aspects of the draft articles provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee of the United Nations International Law Commission, as well as the proposed new draft articles in the regulation of specific categories of succession of States in respect of the obligations arising from responsibility. The author concludes that the norms formulated under the theme should take into account the complex legal regime of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, which differs from other regimes of succession. 

1. Blum Y.Z. Russia takes over the Soviet Union’s seat at the United Nations. – European Journal of International Law. 1992. Vol. 3. Issue 2. P. 354–361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/3.2.354

2. Bothe M., Schmidt C. Sur quelques questions de succession posées par la dissolution de l’URSS et celle de la Yougoslavie. – Revue générale de droit international public. 1992. Vol. 96. No. 4. P. 821–842.

3. Chernichenko S.V. Kontinuitet, identichnost' i pravopreemstvo gosudarstv [Continuity, Identity, and Succession of States]. – Rossiiskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava, 1996—1997 [Russian Yearbook of International Law, 1996–1997]. Saint Petersburg: Rossiya-Neva Publ. 1998. P. 9–44. (In Russ.)

4. Craven C. The problem of State succession and the identity of States under international law. – European Journal of International Law. 1998. Vol. 9. Issue 1. P. 142–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/9.1.142

5. Crawford J. State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 906 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139033060

6. Crawford J. The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. 2007. 944 p.

7. Czapliński W. State succession and State responsibility. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 1990. Vol. 28. P. 339–358.

8. Dumberry P. Is a new State responsible for obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts before its independence in the context of secession?. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 2005. Vol. 43. P. 419–454.

9. Dumberry P. New State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts by an insurrectional movement. – European Journal of International Law. 2006. Vol. 17. Issue 3. P. 605–621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chl016

10. Dumberry P. State Succession to International Responsibility. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 2007. 520 p.

11. Eisemann P. Rapport du directeur d’études de la section de langue française du Centres. – State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts. Ed. by P. Eisemann and M. Koskenniemi. Leiden: Brill. 2000. P. 4–65.

12. Greenman K. The secret history of successful rebellions in the law of State responsibility. – ESIL Reflections. 2017. Vol. 6. Issue 9. URL: https://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/ESIL%20Reflection%20Greenman.pdf (accessed date: 18.03.2019).

13. Hessbruegge J.A. The historical development of the doctrines of attribution and due diligence in international law. – New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. 2003. Vol. 36. P. 265–306.

14. Kamminga M.T. State succession in respect of human rights treaties. – European Journal of International Law. 1996. Vol. 7. Issue 4. P. 496–484. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1093/ejil/7.4.469

15. Kolb R. The International Law of State Responsibility. An Introduction. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 2017. 296 p.

16. Koskenniemi M., Lehto M. La succession d’États dans l’ex-URSS, en ce qui concerne particulièrement les relations avec la Finlande. – Annuaire français de droit international. 1992. Vol. 38. P. 179–219.

17. Kremnev P.P. Pravopreemstvo gosudarstv v nekodifitsirovannykh oblastyakh [Succession of States in Uncodified Areas]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2006. No. 4. P. 37–53. (In Russ.)

18. Kremnev P.P. Kategoriya “Rossiiskaya Federatsiya – gosudarstvo-prodolzhatel' SSSR”: voprosy teorii i praktiki [Category “Russian Federation – a Continuing State of the USSR”: issues of theory and practice]. – Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11. Pravo. 2008. No. 2. P. 3–22. (In Russ.)

19. Kremnev P.P. Raspad SSSR i pravopreemstvo gosudarstv [The collapse of the USSR and succession of states]. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ. 2012. 192 p. (In Russ.)

20. La Convention de Vienne de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités: commentaire article par article et études thématiques. Ed. by G. Distefano, G. Gaggioli and A. Hêche. Brussels: Bruylant. 2016. 2082 p.

21. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoy otvetstvennosti [The Law of International Responsibility]. Moscow: Walters Kluwer Publ. 2004. 432 p. (In Russ.)

22. Mälksoo L. Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden: Martinus Nijhof. 2003. 373 p.

23. Marek K. Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law. Geneva: Librairie Droz. 1968. 619 p.

24. Milanović M. What the Kosovo advisory opinion means for the rest of the world. – American Society of International Law Proceedings. 2011.Vol. 105. P. 259–274.

25. Monnier J.P. La succession d’États en matière de responsabilité international. – Annuaire français de droit international. 1962. Vol. 8. P. 65–90.

26. Mullerson R. Law and politics in succession of States: international law on succession of States. – Dissolution, continuation et succession en Europe de l’Est: succession d'états et relations économiques internationales : colloque des 7 et 8 octobre 1993. Ed. by G. Burdeau and B. Stern. Paris: Montchrestien. 1994. P. 5–32.

27. O’Connell D.P. State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1967. 592 p.

28. Pazartzis P. La succession d’États comme moyen de régulation des relations internationales, Faut-il prendre le droit international au sérieux? – Journée d’étude en l’honneur de Pierre Michel Eisemann. Ed. by S. Cassella and L. Delabie. Paris: Pedone. 2016. P. 33–40.

29. Rich R. Recognition of States: the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. – European Journal of International Law. 1993. Vol. 4. Issue 1. P. 36–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035834

30. Szurek S. Épilogue d’un contentieux historique: l’accord du 27 mai 1997 entre le gouvernement de la république française et le gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie relatif au règlement définitif des créances réciproques entre la France et la Russie antérieures au 9 mai 1945. – Annuaire français de droit international. 1998. Vol. 44. P. 144–166.

31. Tancredi А. In search of a fair balance between the inviolability of borders, self-determination and secession in international law. – Law, Territory and Conflict Resolution: Law as a Problem and Law as a Solution. Ed. by M. Nicolini, F. Palermo and E. Milano. Leiden: Brill. 2016. P. 90–104.

32. The Law of International Responsibility. Ed. by J. Crawford, A. Pellet and S. Olleson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. 1376 p.

33. Tichy H. Two recent cases of State succession: an Austrian perspective. – Austrian Journal of Public and International Law. 1992. Vol. 44. P. 117–136.

34. Volkovitsch M.J. Righting wrongs: towards a new theory of State succession to responsibility for international delicts. – Columbia Law Review. 1992. Vol. 92. No. 8. P. 2162–2214. DOI: 10.2307/1123019