Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of State Succession Issues Arising as a cResult of an Armed Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

  • 1090 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter addresses the question of what happens to legal protections of foreign investors under a BIT when an armed conflict leads to a situation of State succession. It first examines the actual practice of States concerning the continuation of BITs. Such continuation depends on the express or tacit agreement of both States concerned, i.e. the successor State and the “other State Party” to the BIT which was signed by the predecessor State. The chapter also examines the question of what happens to BITs when the States concerned have not agreed on any such continuation. I will argue that BITs do not automatically continue to be in force as of the date of succession unless both States concerned have agreed to such a continuation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The expression “State succession” is defined in the 1978 and 1983 Vienna Conventions as “the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory”. Article 2(1)b), Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, signed on 23 August 1978 and entered into force on 6 November 1996, 1946 UNTS 3, in: 17 I.L.M., 1978, 1488; Article 2(1)a) of the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Properties, Archives and Debts, in: (1983) 22 ILM 306. The same definition can also be found at Article 2 of the Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the Succession of States, adopted by the ILC on second reading in 1999, ILC Report, U.N. Doc. A/54/10, 1999, chp. IV, paras 44-45, in: (1997) II Yearbook ILC 13.

  2. 2.

    Dumberry (2018).

  3. 3.

    Such changes may thus affect the identity of the respondent State in the proceedings. For example, in the context of the dissolution of a State, the respondent will cease to exist during the proceedings. An event of succession may also affect the home State of the claimant investor and result in changes of nationality during the proceedings. My book examines the approach which tribunals should adopt whenever they are faced with any such dramatic changes.

  4. 4.

    Tams (2016), p. 315.

  5. 5.

    Dumberry (2015a), pp. 74–96. Around the same time, another article was published by Genest (2014). Another article examining only partly the question of succession to BITs is: Fraterman (2013).

  6. 6.

    O’Connell (1967).

  7. 7.

    It should be added that if Catalonia becomes an independent State through the process of “secession” (or “separation”), Spain will continue to exist and will therefore continue to be bound by the BITs it signed before losing part of its territory.

  8. 8.

    Dumberry (2018).

  9. 9.

    On 25 November 1992, the Czechoslovak Federal Assembly voted the Constitutional Act no. 542/1992 (which came into force on 8 December 1992) indicating that the Federation would cease to exist on 31 December 1992.

  10. 10.

    See United Nations Treaty Collection, Chapter XXIII, Law of Treaties.

  11. 11.

    Stern (1996), pp. 315, 316; Klabbers et al. (1999), p. 110; Mikulka (2015), pp. 122–124.

  12. 12.

    See, analysis of Tams (2016), p. 315.

  13. 13.

    See, UNCTAD: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/187#iiaInnerMenu. Serbia-Montenegro had also signed 6 BITs which were however not in force at the date of succession.

  14. 14.

    Article 3 of the Declaration of Independence. See also: Letter dated 10 October 2006, received by the UN Secretary-General on 23 October 2006.

  15. 15.

    EU List of BIAs referred in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 [hereinafter “EU”, “List of BITs”]. Under Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 12 December 2012, the Member States had the obligations to notify the Commission “of all bilateral investment agreements with third countries [...] that they either wish to maintain in force or permit to enter into force under this Chapter”.

  16. 16.

    Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, South Korea, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.

  17. 17.

    Belgium-Luxembourg, Finland, Turkey, and North Macedonia.

  18. 18.

    Germany, Austria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. It should be added that the BIT signed with India in 2003 is not in force with Montenegro (but it is in force with Serbia since 2009). UNCTAD nevertheless lists this instrument amongst Montenegro’s BITs.

  19. 19.

    One reliable source of information is the EU website mentioned above listing the names of the countries with which they consider having a treaty relationship regarding investment protection.

  20. 20.

    See, exchanges of letters between Montenegro and Cyprus, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Spain.

  21. 21.

    Dupont (2009), p. 937. See also: Qerimi and Krasniqi (2013), p. 1359.

  22. 22.

    Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence, 17 February 2008, available at http://www.assembly-kosova.org/?cid=2,128,1635. See para. 9 indicating that the democratically-elected representatives of the people of Kosovo have: [U]ndertake[n] the international obligations of Kosovo, including […] treaty and other obligations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which we are bound as a former constituent part, including the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations’.

  23. 23.

    Such exchanges of notes were made with the Czech Republic, Germany, and France. Interestingly, the same type of exchange of letters was done with the United Kingdom, but the list of treaties does not include the 2002 UK-FRY BIT. This is a rather unique case where the parties have expressly agreed on the non-continuation of a BIT. It should be added that since its declaration of independence, Kosovo has signed ten BITs with other States.

  24. 24.

    World Wide Minerals Ltd. Mr. Paul A. Carroll, QC v Kazakhstan, UNCITRAL, Award, 19 October 2015.

  25. 25.

    Disclaimer: the present author acted as counsel for the respondent in this case.

  26. 26.

    Declaration of Alma Ata, 21 December 1991, UN Doc. A/46/60, in (1992) 31 ILM 147.

  27. 27.

    Spain, Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Secretaría De Estado De Comercio, Acuerdos De Promocion Y Proteccion Reciproca De Inversiones, available at: http://www.comercio.es/es-ES/inversiones-exteriores/acuerdos-internacionales/acuerdos-promocion-proteccion-reciproca-inversiones-appris/Paginas/lista-appri-vigor.aspx.

  28. 28.

    Id, footnotes attached to each of the 7 BITs reads as follows: “De acuerdo con la Declaración de Alma-Ata de diciembre de 1991, los Estados sucesores de la URSS, que tras la extinción de la URSS se integraron en la Comunidad de Estados Independientes (CEI), han asumido el cumplimiento de las obligaciones internacionales derivadas de los tratados y acuerdos concluidos por la antigua Unión Soviética. En consecuencia, a excepción de Kazajstán, Ucrania, Uzbekistán y Moldavia, con los que después de 1991 España ha firmado nuevos APPRI, el APPRI con la URSS, en vigor desde el 28-11-1991, continua siendo de aplicación en Armenia, Azerbaiján, Bielorrusia, Georgia, Kirguizistán, Rusia, Tayikistán y Turkmenistán”. (translation by the present author: “According to the Declaration of Alma-Ata in December 1991, the successor States of the USSR, which after the Soviet Union had been dissolved into the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), have assumed compliance with international obligations arising from Treaties and agreements concluded by the former Soviet Union. As a result, with the exception of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova, with which, after 1991, Spain has signed new [BITs], [BITs] with the USSR, in force since 28-11-1991, continues to apply in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan”).

  29. 29.

    The webpage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia concerning the bilateral relations between Spain and Armenia refers to 7 treaties binding between the two States, but not to any agreement dealing with investment. See, document available at: http://www.mfa.am/en/country-by-country/es/. The webpage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan concerning the bilateral relations between Spain and Azerbaijan (available at: http://www.mfa.gov.az/files/file/Azerbaijan%20-%20Spain.pdf) refers to “2 documents” being signed by the two States, without indicating what these documents are. A similar webpage from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan (available at: http://mfa.tj/?l=en&cat=92&art=189) also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two States, but is silent regarding any investment agreement.

  30. 30.

    Exchange of Notes between the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on bilateral treaty relations, signed on 21 September 1995 and 29 February 1996, entered into force on 29 February 1996, available at: https://verdragenbank.overheid.nl/en/Verdrag/Details/011803.

  31. 31.

    On this question, see, Di Stefano (2015), p. 871, indicating that “l’acquiescement ‘passif’ peut aussi résulter de l’inaction prolongée, du silence, de l’absence de protestations ou de réactions d’un Etat vis-à-vis des positions ou prétentions manifestées par l’autre Etat”. See also: Kolliopoulos (2015), pp. 331–332.

  32. 32.

    On this question, see Antunes (2006), para. 21; Crawford (2012), p. 419.

  33. 33.

    Dumberry (2015b).

  34. 34.

    The provision further indicates that there are two circumstances under which the principle of continuity will apply: when both the Newly Independent State and the “other State party” have expressly agreed that the “original treaty” continues to be force after the independence, or when both States “by reason of their conduct [...] are to be considered” as having agreed to such a continuation.

  35. 35.

    While this provision uses the term “separation”, it is important to note that it applies to two different cases of State succession: “secession” and “dissolution” of States.

  36. 36.

    This rule of continuity bears two exceptions. Firstly, when the implicated parties have specifically agreed upon the application of the tabula rasa rule. The second exception is when the automatic application of the treaty to the successor State would be “incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation”.

  37. 37.

    Dumberry (2015b).

  38. 38.

    ILC (1972), p. 297.

  39. 39.

    Craven (2007), pp. 131–132.

  40. 40.

    ILC (1972), p. 227.

  41. 41.

    ILC (1972), p. 250.

  42. 42.

    ILC (1971), pp. 145–146.

  43. 43.

    ILC (1971), p. 146, para. 3.

  44. 44.

    ILC (1974), p. 265.

  45. 45.

    United Nations (1979), pp. 53–73, 107–114.

  46. 46.

    ILC Report (1971), p. 146, para. 2.

  47. 47.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 212 (emphasis in the original). See also, at 237.

  48. 48.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 239 (emphasis added).

  49. 49.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 237. See also: Di Stefano (2015), pp. 851–852.

  50. 50.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 237. See also: Di Stefano (2015), pp. 851–852.

  51. 51.

    Meriboute (1984), p. 79.

  52. 52.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 237.

  53. 53.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 237.

  54. 54.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 238 (emphasis in the original).

  55. 55.

    Cahier (1984), p. 72; Meriboute (1984), pp. 74, 78; Yasseen (1978), p. 108; Menon (1990), p. 156; Szafarz (1983), p. 97.

  56. 56.

    ILC Report (1974), p. 239.

  57. 57.

    Di Stefano (2015); Stern (1996), pp. 315–316; Hafner and Novak (2012), p. 414; Kolliopoulos (2015), pp. 301–302, 307et seq.; Genest (2014), pp. 9–12; Shaw (2008), p. 967; Degan (1996), p. 226; Pereira (1969), p. 149; Udokang (1972), p. 501; Zemanek (1965), p. 238; Cahier (1984), p. 72; Meriboute (1984), p. 74; Yasseen (1978), p. 108; Dupont (2009), p. 23.

  58. 58.

    ILA (2008). See also: Tams (2016), p. 326.

  59. 59.

    Stern (1996), p. 314. See also, for the same conclusion: ILA (2008) point no. 6.

  60. 60.

    Mikulka (2015), pp. 1204, 1206.

  61. 61.

    ILA (2008) point no. 6; ILA (2002).

  62. 62.

    ILA (2008) point no. 6. See also: ILA (1996), pp. 690–691.

  63. 63.

    ILA (2002).

  64. 64.

    Eisemann (2000), p. 53.

  65. 65.

    Eisemann (2000), pp. 54–55; Tams (2016), p. 334 (“the better view is that Article 34 does not reflect customary international law – and that it certainly does not reflect customary international law as far as bilateral treaties are concerned”.

  66. 66.

    Klabbers et al. (1999), p. 116.

  67. 67.

    Dumberry (2015a), pp. 74–96.

  68. 68.

    Sanum Investments Limited v Laos, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2013-13, Award on Jurisdiction (13 December 2013).

  69. 69.

    See: Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v Russian Federation, SCC, Award (7 July 1998), para. 17; RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v Russian Federation, SCC Case No. V079/2005, Award on Jurisdiction (1 October 2007), paras 31, 37, 42; Vladimir Berschader and Moïse Berschander v Russian Federation, SCC Case No. 080/2004, Award (21 April 2006), paras 151et seq., 161.

  70. 70.

    Mytilineos Holdings SA v State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia, UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Jurisdiction (8 Sept. 2006), paras 7, 158.

  71. 71.

    See: Ronald S. Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (3 September 2001), paras 2, 10; Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (12 November 2010), para. 3; InterTrade Holding GmbH v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-12, Final Award (29 May 2012), para. 5; Peter Franz Vocklinghaus v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award (26 June 2009), para. 6; CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 Sept. 2001), para. 3, and ibid, Final Award (14 March 2003), para. 3.

  72. 72.

    See Eastern Sugar B.V. (Netherlands) v Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 088/2004, Partial Award (27 March 2007), paras 97, 141et seq., 154, 5; Binder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (6 June 2007), paras 1, 11-12, 59-60; Eureko B.V. v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension (26 October 2010), paras 9, 48 (This name of the case was later changed to: Achmea B.V. v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, see, Final Award (7 December 2012), paras 82, 154et seq., Alps Finance and Trade AG v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award (5 March 2011), para. 1; HICEE B.V. v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-11, Partial Award (23 May 2011), para. 3, fn 2; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 April 2010), paras 41, 65et seq., 98, 56; William Nagel v Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 049/2002, Award (9 September 2003), para. 266; European Media Ventures SA vCzech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (15 May 2007), para. 1.

  73. 73.

    Achmea B.V. v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (Number 2), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (20 May 2014), para. 1, fn 1; Invesmart v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award (26 June 2009) [8]; Austrian Airlines v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (9 Oct. 2009) [8]; ECE Projektmanagement v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2010-5, Award (19 September 2013), para. 1.17.

  74. 74.

    Saluka Investments B.V. v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 March 2006) [30-31]. See also, Id., Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim (7 May 2004) [2].

  75. 75.

    European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012), para. 40.

  76. 76.

    European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012), para. 79.

  77. 77.

    European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012), para. 79 (emphasis added).

  78. 78.

    European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012), para. 81.

  79. 79.

    European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012), para. 79.

  80. 80.

    Article 6 of the 1978 Vienna Convention indicates that its provisions “apply only to the effects of a succession of States occurring in conformity with international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations”.

  81. 81.

    Gagglioli (2015), pp. 193–195.

  82. 82.

    Gagglioli (2015), p. 219.

References

  • Antunes NSM (2006) Acquiescence. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law (online eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahier P (1984) Quelques aspects de la Convention de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités. In: Dutoit B, Grisel E (eds) Mélanges en l’honneur de Georges Perrin. Payot, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Craven M (2007) The decolonization of international law: state succession and the law of treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Degan V (1996) La succession d’États en matière de traités et les États nouveaux (issus de l’ex-Yougoslavie). Annuaire français de droit international 42:206–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano A (2015) Article 24. In: Distephano G, Gaggioli A (eds) La Convention de Vienne de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités: Commentaire article par article et études thématiques. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P (2015a) An uncharted question of state succession: are new states automatically bound by the BITs concluded by predecessor states before independence? J Int Dispute Settlement 6:74–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P (2015b) 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 J Int Law 28:13–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P (2018) A guide to state succession in international investment law. Elgar Publications, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont PE (2009) Foreign investment and the Status of Kosovo in international law. J World Invest Trade 10:937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisemann PM (2000) Rapport du Directeur de la section de langue française du Centre. In: Eisemann PM, Koskenniemi M (eds) State succession: codification tested against the facts. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • EU, ‘List of the bilateral investment agreements referred in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries (2014/C 169/01)’, 5.6.2014, Official Journal of the European Union, C 169/1, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52014XC0605(01)

  • Fraterman JA (2013) Secession, state succession and international arbitration. Social Science Research Network

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagglioli G (2015) Article 6. In: Distephano G, Gaggioli A (eds) La Convention de Vienne de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités: Commentaire article par article et études thématiques. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Genest A (2014) Sudan bilateral investment treaties and South Sudan: musings on state succession to bilateral treaties in the wake of Yugoslavia’s breakup. Transnl Dispute Manage 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G, Novak G (2012) State succession in respect of treaties. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Association (1996) Conclusions of the committee on aspects of the law on state succession; ILA, ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la succession d’États en matière de traités’, 1996, Helsinki Conference

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Association (2002) Rapport Final sur la Succession en Matière de traités, New Delhi Conference 2002, Committee on Aspects of the Law of State Succession

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Association (2008) Conclusions of the committee on aspects of the law on state succession, Resolution no. 3/2008, adopted at the 73rd Conference of the International Law Association, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 17–21 August, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1971) Fourth report on succession in respect of treaties, prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Sir Humphrey Waldock, A/CN.4/249, 24 June 1971, A/8410/Rev.1. In: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol II (Part One)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1972) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-fourth session, 2 May to 7 July 1972, A/8710/Rev.1. In: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol II

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1974) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-sixth session, 6 May to 26 July 1974, A/9610/Rev.1. In: Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1974, vol II (Part One)

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J, Koskenniemi M, Zimmermann A (1999) Pilot project on documentation concerning state practice relating to state succession and recognition. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolliopoulos A (2015) Article 9. In: Distephano G, Gaggioli A (eds) La Convention de Vienne de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités: Commentaire article par article et études thématiques. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon PK (1990) The newly independent states and succession in respect of treaties. Korean J Comp Law 18:139

    Google Scholar 

  • Meriboute Z (1984) La codification de la succession d’États aux traités: décolonisation, sécession, unification. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mikulka V (2015) Article 34. In: Distephano G, Gaggioli A (eds) La Convention de Vienne de 1978 sur la succession d’États en matière de traités: Commentaire article par article et études thématiques. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell DP (1967) State succession in municipal law and international law, vol I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira AG (1969) La succession d’États en matière de traités. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Qerimi Q, Krasniqi S (2013) Theories and practice of state succession to bilateral treaties: the recent experience of Kosovo. German Law J 14(9):1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M (2008) International Law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stern B (1996) La succession d’États. Recueil des Cours, vol 262

    Google Scholar 

  • Szafarz R (1983) Succession of states in respect of treaties in contemporary international law. Polish Yearb Int Law 12:119

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ (2016) State succession to investment treaties: mapping the issues. ICSID Rev 31(2):315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udokang O (1972) Succession of the new states to international treaties. Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Conférence des Nations Unies sur la succession d’États en matière de traités, comptes rendus analytiques des séances plénières et des séances de la Commission plénière, deuxième session, vol. II (1979) at 53–73, 107–114

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Treaty Collection, Chapter XXIII, Law of Treaties, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII2&chapter=23&clang=_en#EndDec

  • Yasseen MK (1978) La Convention de Vienne sur la Succession d’Etats en matière de Traités. Annuaire français de droit international 24:59–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemanek K (1965) State succession after decolonization. Recueil des cours 116

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law (Civil Law Section), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Patrick Dumberry

Authors
  1. Patrick Dumberry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Dumberry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Katia Fach Gómez

  2. Athens Public International Law Center, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Anastasios Gourgourinis

  3. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)-CERSA, University Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Paris, France

    Catharine Titi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dumberry, P. (2019). An Overview of State Succession Issues Arising as a cResult of an Armed Conflict. In: Fach Gómez, K., Gourgourinis, A., Titi, C. (eds) International Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10746-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10746-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10745-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10746-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation