Succession of States in respect of State property and Debts

Author

Abstract

The rule which applied to all types and forms of succession (cession, dismemberment of States, unification of States) was that the property of the predecessor State became the property of the successor State directly on the basis of international law. There is no universally accepted definition of State property in international law, so different definitions were elaborated in specific treaties, other international instruments dealing with the succession of States, and in the international jurisprudence. One must use the municipal law of the predecessor to show that what were the property of predecessor state. This practice is confirmed in Vienna convention 1983 (state succession in respect of property& Archive & debts) . The rules of succession in respect of State debts are disputed, the practice is extremely differentiated, and the formulation of conclusions as to the possible customary nature of various rules is very difficult. In different types of State succession we face any of a total transfer of debts to the successor State, a total rejection of the transfer, or all of the intermediate solutions. The Acts of successor states may depends on the nature of debts and the kind of successions.

Keywords

References

منابع فارسی
1. اوتر، استفان، «وحدت آلمان و جانشینی کشورها»، مترجم. سیّدجمال سیفی. مجله تحقیقات حقوقی 11و 12 (1371) 323-393.
2. سیفی، سیّدجمال. «رویه قضایی بین‌المللی: جانشینی کشور ها در فروپاشی جمهوری فدرال سوسیالیستی یوگسلاوی در پرتو نظریه های کمیسیون داوری جامعه اروپا و قرار دستور موقت 8 آوریل 1993 دیوان دادگستری بین‌المللی در قضیه بوسنی ـ هرزه گوین». مجله تحقیقات حقوقی 13و 14 (1372): 237-265.
 
منابع لاتین
1. Buchheit Lee C, The Dilemma of Odious Debts, Duke Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper, No. 127, September (2006).
2. Cheng  Tai Heng, State succession & Commercial Obligations, Transnational Publishers, 2006.
3. Fischer G, Un Cas de Decolonization-Les Etats Unis et les Philipines, Paris, Librarie Generale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1960.
4. Djuro Degan Vladmir, Disagreement Over The Definition Of State Property in The Process of State Succession to The Former Yugoslavia,   Martinus  Nijhoff  Publisher, 1991.
5. Hasani Anwar, The Evolution of The Succession Process in Former Yugoslavia, Thomas Jefferson Law Review, Vol. 29, 2001.
6. INISTITUT  DE  DEROIT  INTERNATIONAL .session of Vancouver 2001, State Succession in Matters of  Property & Debts.
7. Janis M.W, «The Ambiguity of Equity in International Law,» Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Volume IX, 1983.
8. Jeze Gaston, Revue de Science et Legislation Financieres, Giard, Paris, 1922.
9. Keith Beridale Arthur, The Theory of State Succession with special reference to English and colonial law, Waterlow & Son Publishers, 1907.
10. mennon Yilma, State Succession in Africa, (Selected Problems), Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 1987.
11. Mullerson Rein,«The Continuity & Succession of States by Reference to The USSR & Yugoslavia», International Comparative Law Quarterly, 42 July 1993.                
12. Occonnel D.P , State Succession in Municipal Law &International Law , Cambridge University press, 1967.
13. Piotrowicz  Ryszard & Blay sam, German monitor- the Unification of Germany in International Law, (1992).
14. Roda Mushkat, The Transition of Salient International Legal Issue   From British Chinese Rule in Hong Kong, A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issue, (2000).
15. Stanic Ana, «Financial Aspects of State Succession: The Case of Yugoslavia», European Journal of International Law, 2001.
16.Varges Detlev,» State Succession in The Former USSR & in Eastern Europe«, Virginia Journal of International Law, 33 (1993).
17. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1971, vol. ii, Part One –Doc. A/CN216.
18. Yearbook of International Law Commission 1977, vol.  ii, part one- Doc. A/CN247.
Journal of Legal Research
Volume 13, Issue 26
March 2014
Pages 105-128

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics