Question 1 Answer
The legal consequences of state succession are wide-ranging, as they involve the transfer of
rights, duties, and responsibilities from one state to another. Politically, successor states often
inherit international commitments such as bilateral relations and membership in international
organizations. A well-known example is the recognition of Russia as the successor to the USSR,
which allowed it to retain the Soviet Union’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security
Council. Another important issue in state succession is the treatment of individuals living in the
territory. Questions arise regarding whether they retain their former citizenship or acquire a new
one, whether property rights remain valid under the new administration, and how civil and
political rights are protected or altered when sovereignty changes hands.
Fiscal debts are also a significant part of state succession. In cases of universal succession, the
successor state assumes all financial obligations of its predecessor. In partial succession,
however, debts may be distributed proportionally, often based on the size of the population,
territory, or economic capacity. The dissolution of Yugoslavia illustrates this principle, as its
debts were divided among the new states in proportion to their relative size and resources.
The effect of state succession on treaties depends on the nature of the agreements. Bilateral
treaties often lapse unless both parties agree to continue them, while multilateral treaties are
more likely to remain in force, depending on how international practice develops and whether
the successor state chooses to uphold them. Beyond treaties and debts, state succession has also
influenced the evolution of individuals’ legal status under international law. For much of history,
international law was entirely state-centered, focusing on the regulation of relations between
sovereign states. This began to change with the development of humanitarian law, most notably
through the Geneva Conventions, which introduced protections for individuals during armed
conflict. After World War II, this recognition expanded dramatically with the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, followed by legally binding treaties such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Regional conventions, such as the European Convention
on Human Rights, further solidified the recognition of individuals as subjects of international
law.
Question 2 Answer
State succession is a complex legal concept that occurs when one state replaces another in
governing a territory. This process has generated significant debate, with two main theories
shaping its interpretation: the Continuity Theory and the Clean Slate Theory. The Continuity
Theory holds that when a state dissolves or transitions into a new form, its rights and obligations
carry over to the successor state. This theory emphasizes stability and the continuity of
international obligations. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties,
though not universally ratified, reflects this approach by suggesting that treaties generally remain
binding unless a successor state chooses otherwise or the obligations have become incompatible
with fundamental changes in circumstances. Historical examples support this perspective, such
as Serbia’s recognition as the legal successor of Yugoslavia and Russia’s assumption of the
Soviet Union’s obligations and permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.
In contrast, the Clean Slate Theory argues that new states are not bound by the obligations of
their predecessors and instead begin afresh. This theory is particularly relevant for newly
decolonized states, which were often unwilling to inherit treaties or debts imposed during
colonial rule. The principle of uti possidetis juris, which requires new states to retain the
territorial boundaries they had at the moment of independence, has been used to maintain order
and avoid disputes under this theory. At the same time, principles of equity and fairness guide
the distribution of assets, debts, and treaty obligations, with emphasis placed on peoples’ right to
self-determination. Together, these two theories represent contrasting approaches to state
succession, with continuity ensuring stability and predictability, and the clean slate offering
flexibility and independence to emerging states.
Question 3 Answer
State responsibility is one of the most important doctrines of international law, as it establishes
the accountability of states for violations of their legal obligations. A state is considered
responsible when an act or omission attributable to it breaches an international obligation. This
includes conduct by state organs, officials, or individuals acting under the effective control of the
state. Wrongful acts may involve unlawful uses of force, violations of treaty commitments,
negligence in preventing harm, or breaches of human rights obligations.
The legal consequences of state responsibility are significant. A state found to have committed a
wrongful act must immediately cease the act and provide full reparation for the injury caused.
Reparation can take several forms. Restitution seeks to restore the situation as it existed before
the wrongful act occurred. Compensation provides payment for financially measurable losses.
Satisfaction, on the other hand, may involve acknowledgment of wrongdoing or symbolic
remedies when restitution and compensation are not sufficient.
The rules of state responsibility are often described as “secondary rules” because they deal with
the consequences of breaches, rather than defining the substantive primary obligations
themselves. The invocation of responsibility depends on the type of obligation breached. An
injured state may demand redress if the obligation was owed specifically to it. However, in cases
where peremptory norms of international law are violated, such as prohibitions on genocide or
aggression, all states have an obligation to cooperate to bring the violation to an end and to
refuse recognition of the unlawful situation. In this way, state responsibility ensures that
international law remains enforceable and that states are held to account for wrongful conduct.
