Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kapitel 8: Die völkerrechtliche Debatte das um Recht der Staatennachfolge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die Bindung der Dritten Welt an das postkoloniale Völkerrecht

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 264))

  • 937 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Zunächst soll dargestellt werden, welche Bedeutung die Völkerrechtler in der Dritten Welt dem Recht der Staatennachfolge beimaßen (I.). Dem schließen sich einige grundlegende Anmerkungen über das Recht der Staatennachfolge in der Debatte der Völkerrechtskommission an (II.).

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
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.

    Schoenborn, Staatensukzession (1913), S. 3; Merican, The Third World and International Law (1976), S. 72; Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 1.

  2. 2.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 895.

  3. 3.

    Schoenborn, Staatensukzession (1913), S. 4; O’Connell, International Law (1970), S. 368.

  4. 4.

    Siehe beispielsweise Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 11. Zur Rechweite des Begriffs der Staatennachfolge siehe sogleich.

  5. 5.

    Siehe Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 8; O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 3; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 23.

  6. 6.

    Näheres zur Rechweite des Begriffs der Staatennachfolge siehe sogleich.

  7. 7.

    Siehe dazu Teil I.

  8. 8.

    Siehe Teil I.

  9. 9.

    Siehe Hierzu auch Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 86.

  10. 10.

    Vgl. hierzu allgemein O’Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band I (1967), S. 8 ff.

  11. 11.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 886 f.; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 30 ff. Zu den Vertretern gehörten u. a. Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres, in quibus Jus Naturae et Gentium, item Juris Publici Praecipua Explicantur (1651); de Vattel, Das Völkerrecht oder Grundsätze des Naturrechts, angewandt auf das Verhalten und die Angelegenheiten der Staaten und Staatsoberhäupter (1758, Übersetzung 1959); Huber, Die Staatensuccession: Völkerrechtliche und staatsrechtliche Praxis im XIX. Jahrhundert (1889).

  12. 12.

    Udokang, Succession of New States to International Treaties (1972), S. 122.

  13. 13.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 887.

  14. 14.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, Fn. 2

  15. 15.

    Ein bekanntes Beispiel für diesen Negativismus bildet Keith, The Theory of State Succession: With Special Reference to English and Colonial Law (1907), S. 1 ff.

  16. 16.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 888. Siehe hierzu unten, Kapitel 9.

  17. 17.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 50 f. Siehe hierzu auch unten, Kapitel 10.

  18. 18.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 888.

  19. 19.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 889.

  20. 20.

    Siehe oben, Teil I.

  21. 21.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 889.

  22. 22.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 135; Beispielsweise O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 266 ff.

  23. 23.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 82.

  24. 24.

    Siehe O’Connell, Independence and State Succession to Treaties, 38 British Year Book of International Law (1962), S. 84 ff.; O’Connell, State Succession and Problems of Treaty Interpretation, 58 American Journal of International Law (1964), S. 41 ff.; O’Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law (1967) Band I und Band II.

  25. 25.

    De Vattel, Das Völkerrecht oder Grundsätze des Naturrechts, angewandt auf das Verhalten und die Angelegenheiten der Staaten und Staatsoberhäupter (1758, Übersetzung 1959); siehe auch Keith, The Theory of State Succession: With Special Reference to English and Colonial Law (1907), S. 17 ff.

  26. 26.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 15.

  27. 27.

    O’Connell, Reflections on the State Succession Convention, 39 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1979), S. 725, 738.

  28. 28.

    Siehe oben Teil II.

  29. 29.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 275 f. Dies galt laut O’Connell jeweils für eine Gesamtrechtsnachfolge. Bei der Teilrechtsnachfolge sollten seiner Ansicht nach persönliche Verträge in Kraft bleiben, sofern dies mit den geänderten Umständen vereinbar sei. Zum Begriff der dispositiven Verträge siehe unten.

  30. 30.

    Siehe hierzu Kapitel 10.

  31. 31.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 276 ff.

  32. 32.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 83. Im Jahr 1961 setzte die ILA ein 14-köpfiges Komitee ein, um das Thema „The Succession of New States to the Treaties and Certain Other Obligations of their Predecessors” zu erforschen. Vorsitzender des Komitees war der Franzose Charles Rousseau, Berichterstatter wurde O’Connell. Der Zwischenbericht des Komitees wurde auf der 52. Konferenz der ILA 1966 in Helsinki diskutiert. Dabei verabschiedete die ILA vier Empfehlungen, die darauf abzielten, weitestgehend Kontinuität in die Vertragsbeziehungen der aus der Dekolonialisierung hervorgegangenen Staaten zu bringen. Bei der 53. ILA-Konferenz 1968 in Buenos Aires hatte das Komitee einen weiteren Zwischenbericht mit dem Entwurf von neun Resolutionen zum Thema vorgelegt. Diese Resolutionen nahm die ILA unverändert an. Siehe Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 47, Rn. 13.

  33. 33.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2,, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 48, Rn. 15.

  34. 34.

    Jenks, State Succession in Respect of Law-Making Treaties, 29 British Yearbook of International Law (1952), S. 105, 142. Siehe hierzu schon oben, Teil I.

  35. 35.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 890.

  36. 36.

    Jenks, State Succession in Respect of Law-Making Treaties, 29 British Yearbook of International Law (1952), S. 105, 109. Siehe hierzu auch oben, Teil I.

  37. 37.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 892 f.

  38. 38.

    McNair, The Law of Treaties (1961), S. 601. McNair stützte sich für diese Theorie im Folgenden allerdings auf die Staatenpraxis im Zusammenhang mit der Unabhängigkeit von den Vereinigten Staaten, den ehemals spanischen Gebieten in Südamerika, Belgien, Polen, der Tschechoslowakei, Finnland, den baltischen Staaten, Panama und Pakistan, jedoch nicht auf solche der Dekolonialisierung.

  39. 39.

    Abi-Saab, The Newly Independent States and the Rules of International Law: An Outline, 8 Howard Law Journal (1962), S. 95, 113. Vgl. auch Sinha, Perspective of the Newly Independent States on the Binding Quality of International Law, 14 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1965), S. 121, 126.

  40. 40.

    Beispielsweise Okoye, International Law and the New African States (1972), S. 46 ff.; Sinha, New Nations and the Law of Nations (1967), S. 69 ff.; Mutiti, State Succession to Treaties in Respect of Newly Independent African States (1976); Udokang, Succession of New States to International Treaties (1972); Merican, The Third World and International Law (1976), S. 72 ff.; Poulose, Succession in International Law: A Study of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma (1974).

  41. 41.

    Siehe zu dieser weit verbreiteten Vorgehensweise oben, Teil I.

  42. 42.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  43. 43.

    Siehe oben, Teil I.

  44. 44.

    Merican, The Third World and International Law (1976), S. 74, siehe auch Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 53 ff.

  45. 45.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  46. 46.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 893.

  47. 47.

    Siehe hierzu Kapitel 10.

  48. 48.

    Diese in Tanganjika entwickelte Theorie wurde auch von Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Botswana und Lesotho angewandt. Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 894.

  49. 49.

    Nyerere, Problems of State Succession in Africa: Statement of the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1962), S. 1210, 1211 f.

  50. 50.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 895.

  51. 51.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 294. Siehe auch Elias, Africa and the Development of International Law (1972), S. 23.

  52. 52.

    Siehe hierzu Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 893 ff.

  53. 53.

    Vgl. Hierzu auch Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 203.

  54. 54.

    Siehe beispielsweise Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 99.

  55. 55.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 293. Zur Position vieler östlicher Autoren in Bezug auf Ungleiche Verträge siehe bereits Teil II.

  56. 56.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 263, 264.

  57. 57.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 293 ff.

  58. 58.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 293 f. Zur permanenten Souveränität über natürliche Ressourcen siehe unten, Kapitel 9.

  59. 59.

    Ähnlich auch Tabibi: „He [Tabibi] had emphasized in his own working paper that the study of State succession should be based on State practice. He agreed that undue emphasis on State practice might involve some dangers because the former colonial Powers had, in past practice, imposed some of the solutions. However, the general rules of international law were inadequate to provide the answer to all the problems involved; in any event, many of those rules had also been formulated in the past by former colonial Powers. His conclusion on that point was similar to that of Mr. Bartos, namely that due attention should be paid to the principles of the United Nations Charter and to the practice and principles of the United Nations — in particular, the principle of self-determination — and the extent to which the general rules of international law had been modified by the Charter, principles and practice of the United Nations.” Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 266, 267.

  60. 60.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 263, 264.

  61. 61.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 270, 274.

  62. 62.

    Milan UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 297.

  63. 63.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 189, 193, Rn. 35.

  64. 64.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 98. Zu der Position der Generalversammlung, auf die Bedjaoui anspielt, siehe sogleich.

  65. 65.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 99.

  66. 66.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 100.

  67. 67.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 100 f.

  68. 68.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 101; ders., Problemès Récents de Succession d’Etats dans les Etats Nouveaux, 130 Recueil des Cours (1970, II). S. 457, 489 f.

  69. 69.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 101.

  70. 70.

    O’Connell, International Law (1970), S. 365.

  71. 71.

    Siehe Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 203: „On the one side there were those, like O’Connell, Rosenne, and Keith who understood decolonization as a largely ordered process of governmental devolution characterized by high degrees of legal continuity at both the local and the international level (indeed, on some accounts, these processes were intertwined).”

  72. 72.

    Vgl. Jenks, State Succession in Respect of Law Making Treaties, 29 British Yearbook of International Law (1952), S. 105, 108.

  73. 73.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 203.

  74. 74.

    O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956), S. 3; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 23 f.

  75. 75.

    Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration (1927), S. 129; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 24.

  76. 76.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 24.

  77. 77.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 86.

  78. 78.

    Siehe GA, UN Doc A/Res/16/1686 (18. December 1961); GA, UN Doc A/Res/1902 (XVIII) (18. November 1963).

  79. 79.

    Siehe hierzu sogleich.

  80. 80.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  81. 81.

    Anderer Ansicht war von Anfang an Rosenne, der einen Prinzipienkatalog oder Richtlinien bevorzugt hätte, vgl. Rosenne, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 285, 286.

  82. 82.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 263, 265. Ähnlich auch Castrén, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 290, 291.

  83. 83.

    Zwar wollte sich Waldock in seinem ersten Bericht bezüglich der Form, welche die Artikelentwürfe zur Staatennachfolge in Verträge am Ende annehmen sollten, noch nicht festlegen; er ging aber davon aus, dass es sich dabei um ein autonomes Instrument handeln würde, welches die Existenz der – zu diesem Zeitpunkt gerade bei der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonferenz in Verhandlung befindlichen – WVK voraussetzte. Siehe Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 89, Rn. 11. Bedjaoui machte bereits in seinem ersten Bericht klar, dass er die Kodifizierung in Form eines völkerrechtlichen Vertrages einem rechtlich unverbindlichen Kodex vorzog. Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 100. Dies entsprach dem Mehrheitswillen der ILC, wobei erst später entschieden werden sollte, welche Form die vorzubereitenden Artikelentwürfe letztlich annehmen würden, siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/206, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 191, 217 f.

  84. 84.

    Siehe oben.

  85. 85.

    Diese Ansicht teilten die anderen Mitglieder der ILC grundsätzlich, siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/206, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 191, 217.

  86. 86.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 98. Ähnlich El-Erian, Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 263, 264 f.; Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 274, 277.

  87. 87.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 98.

  88. 88.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 98.

  89. 89.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 99.

  90. 90.

    Siehe hierzu oben.

  91. 91.

    Vgl. Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 270, 273. Bartoš argumentierte hier jedoch nicht einheitlich, zum Teil sprach er sich auch schlicht für eine progressive Weiterentwicklung des Rechts aus, siehe Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 297.

  92. 92.

    Siehe hierzu Teil II.

  93. 93.

    O’Connell, Independence and State Succession to Treaties, 38 British Yearbook of International Law (1962), S. 84, 179; Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69, 87, Rn. 87; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 25.

  94. 94.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 28.

  95. 95.

    Siehe Teil I.

  96. 96.

    Siehe hierzu Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69 ff.

  97. 97.

    Siehe z.B. Castrén, On State Succession in Practice and Theory, 24 Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret (1954), S. 55, 68 f.

  98. 98.

    Beispielsweise Kearney, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1001, ILC-Yearbook (1969, I), S. 57, 61, Rn. 34.

  99. 99.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 25 f.

  100. 100.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 26 f.

  101. 101.

    Rosenne, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 285, 286.

  102. 102.

    Vgl. Kearney, ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.961, ILC-Yearbook (1968, I), S. 105, 108, Rn. 42. Die Fokussierung auf die Dekolonialisierung sollte letztlich auch ein Grund für das Scheitern der Staatennachfolgekonventionen werden, siehe unten.

  103. 103.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 189, 190 f., Rn. 16 f.

  104. 104.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/206, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 191, 218 f.; Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 84; O’Connell, Recent Problems of States Succession in Relation to New States, 130 Hague Recueil (1970, II), S. 95, 102.

  105. 105.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 49, Rn. 19.

  106. 106.

    Who’s Who in the United Nations and Related Agencies (1975), S. 585.

  107. 107.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 5, Rn. 13 f.

  108. 108.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 189, 190, Rn. 12.

  109. 109.

    Siehe hierzu bereits Teil II.

  110. 110.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 93.

  111. 111.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/13 and Corr. 1-3, GOAR, Fourth Session, Supplement No. 10, S. 277, 281.

  112. 112.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 96; GA, UN Doc A/Res/16/1686 (18 December 1961).

  113. 113.

    General Assembly Resolution 1686 (XVI), Rn. 3: „Recommends the International Law Commission: (a) To continue its work in the field of the law of treaties and of State responsibility and to include on its priority list the topic of succession of States and Governments; (b) To consider at its fourteenth session its future programme of work, on the basis of sub-paragraph (a) above and in the light of the discussion in the Sixth Committee at the fifteenth and sixteenth sessions of the General Assembly and of the observations of Member States submitted pursuant to resolution 1505 (XV), and to report to the Assembly at its seventeenth session on the conclusions it has reached”.

  114. 114.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.636, ILC-Yearbook (1962, I), S. 45, 45, Rn. 2. Manfred Lachs wurde als Vorsitzender des Subkomitees eingesetzt; weitere Mitglieder waren Bartoš, Briggs, Castrén, El-Erian, Elias, Liu, Rosenne, Tabibi und Tunkin. ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.637, ILC-Yearbook (1962, I), S. 45, 45, Rn. 1 ff.

  115. 115.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 260, Rn. 1, S. 261, Rn. 4.

  116. 116.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.668, ILC-Yearbook (1962, I), S. 254, 267, Rn. 164.

  117. 117.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 3.

  118. 118.

    Das Subkomitee tagte im Januar 1963, wobei der erkrankte Lachs als Vorsitzender von Erik Castrén vertreten wurde. Das Subkomitee tagte erneut zu Beginn der 15. Sitzung der ILC, um seinen Bericht in Anwesenheit von Lachs zu approbieren. Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 260 f., Rn. 2.

  119. 119.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 13.

  120. 120.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), 260, 261, Rn. 9 f.

  121. 121.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 189, 194, Rn. 63.

  122. 122.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 189, 194, Rn. 65.

  123. 123.

    ILC, UN Doc A/6309/Rev. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1966, II), S. 169, 368, Rn. 38 f.

  124. 124.

    ILC, UN Doc A/6309/Rev. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1966, II), S. 169, 368, Rn. 39 ff.

  125. 125.

    Siehe hierzu unten.

  126. 126.

    Siehe hierzu sogleich.

  127. 127.

    Vgl. Bedjaoui, Towards a New International Economic Order (1979), S. 138 ff., sowie Teil I.

  128. 128.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/249,, ILC-Yearbook (1971, II, 1), S. 143 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/256 an Add. 1-4, ILC-Yearbook (1972, II), S. 1 ff.; Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1 ff.

  129. 129.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 3, Rn. 2.

  130. 130.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 3, Rn. 5.

  131. 131.

    International ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1301, ILC-Yearbook (1974, I), S. 283, 285, Rn. 23.

  132. 132.

    GA, UN Doc A/Res/3496 (XXX (15 December 1975).

  133. 133.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 69 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/226, ILC-Yearbook (1971, II), S. 131 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/247 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1972, II, 1), S. 157 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/259, ILC-Yearbook (1972, II), S. 61 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/267, ILC-Yearbook (1973, II), S. 3 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/282, ILC-Yeabook (1974, II, 1), S. 91 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/292, ILC-Yearbook (1976, II, 1), S. 55 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/301 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1977, II, 1), S. 45 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/313, ILC-Yearbook (1978, II, 1), S. 229 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/322 and Corr. 1 & Add. 1 & 2, ILC-Yearbook (1979, II, 1), S. 67 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/333, ILC-Yearbook (1980, II, 1), S. 1 ff.; ders., UN Doc A/CN.4/345 and Add. 1-3, ILC-Yearbook (1981, II, 1), S. 3-42.

  134. 134.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.1301, ILC-Yearbook (1981, I), S. 278, 278 ff., Rn. 1 ff.

  135. 135.

    GA, UN Doc Res/36/113 (10. Dezember 1981).

  136. 136.

    Siehe hierzu Fazit.

  137. 137.

    Siehe Kapitel 9 und Kapitel 10.

  138. 138.

    O’Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band I (1967), S. 3.

  139. 139.

    Schoenborn, Staatensukzession (1913), S. 9; Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 91, Rn. 3.

  140. 140.

    Siehe Udokang, Succession of New States to International Treaties (1972), S. 107 f.

  141. 141.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 91, Rn. 3 f.

  142. 142.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 91, Rn. 4.

  143. 143.

    Siehe beispielsweise Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 11.

  144. 144.

    Siehe ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/206, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 191, 217, Rn. 47.

  145. 145.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 266, 271 f.; siehe hierzu auch Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 293 f. Siehe zu den verschiedenen Arten der Dekolonialisierung bereits oben, Einleitung.

  146. 146.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 103. Siehe hierzu auch unten zum Begriff der neuen unabhängigen Staaten.

  147. 147.

    Siehe Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 14.

  148. 148.

    Vgl. Chen, State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties (1974), S. 11.

  149. 149.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 9.

  150. 150.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), 260, 261, Rn. 6.

  151. 151.

    Siehe oben.

  152. 152.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 89, Rn. 9. Vgl. Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 118 f.

  153. 153.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 10.

  154. 154.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 90, Rn. 14. In der Präambel der WKSV findet sich daher ein Verweis auf die WVK. Allerdings lässt die WKSV die Frage der Wirksamkeit von Verträgen nach der WVK unberührt, Artikel 14 WKSV. Ähnlich verweist die Präambel der WKSVAS auf die WVK und die WKSV. Die drei Konventionen basieren insofern aufeinander.

  155. 155.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/202, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 87, 90, Rn. 14.

  156. 156.

    Siehe Teil II.

  157. 157.

    Siehe unten, Kapitel 9.

  158. 158.

    Zum Inhalt dieser Sonderregelungen siehe unten.

  159. 159.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 27, Rn. 7 f., S. 29.

  160. 160.

    Article 1 e), Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 27, Rn. 9, S. 28.

  161. 161.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 27 f., Rn. 9.

  162. 162.

    Siehe oben.

  163. 163.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 147 ff.

  164. 164.

    Siehe oben.

  165. 165.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/256 an Add. 1-4, ILC-Yearbook (1972, II), S. 1, 3, Rn. 3, Siehe aber auch Artikel 18, Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/256 an Add. 1-4, ILC-Yearbook (1972, II), S. 1, 3.

  166. 166.

    Siehe hierzu sogleich sowie Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 131 ff.

  167. 167.

    Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 266, 267; Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 293 f.

  168. 168.

    Elias, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 282, 283.

  169. 169.

    Elias, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 282, 284.

  170. 170.

    ILC, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.695, ILC-Yearbook (1963, I), S. 143, 147, Rn. 51. Siehe hierzu ausführlich oben, Teil II

  171. 171.

    Elias, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 282, 284.

  172. 172.

    Elias, Africa and the Development of International Law (1972), S. 23.

  173. 173.

    Lim, Neither Sheep nor Peacocks: T. O. Elias and Postcolonial International Law, 21 Leiden Journal of International Law (2008), 295, 303.

  174. 174.

    Elias, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 282, 283.

  175. 175.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  176. 176.

    Rosenne, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 285, 287.

  177. 177.

    Siehe oben.

  178. 178.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 50, Rn. 22.

  179. 179.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 50, Rn. 23.

  180. 180.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 50, Rn. 23.

  181. 181.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 50, Rn. 23.

  182. 182.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 62.

  183. 183.

    Artikel 4 Absatz 2 c), Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 62.

  184. 184.

    Artikel 4 Absatz 3 a), Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 62.

  185. 185.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 37.

  186. 186.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 135.

  187. 187.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 31.

  188. 188.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 31, Rn. 1.

  189. 189.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 32, Rn. 2 f.; Waldock zitierte hierzu McNair, The Law of Treaties (1961), S. 600 ff., sowie O’Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band II (1967), S. 90 ff.

  190. 190.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 32, Rn. 3; Jenks, State Succession in Respect of Law Making Treaties, 29 British Yearbook of International Law (1952), S. 105, 105 ff. Siehe oben Teil I.

  191. 191.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1970, II), S. 25, 34, Rn. 9.

  192. 192.

    Siehe Artikel 1, Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/249, ILC-Yearbook (1971, II, 1), S. 143, 145.

  193. 193.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/249, ILC-Yearbook (1971, II, 1), S. 143, 150, Rn. 19.

  194. 194.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 137.

  195. 195.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 144.

  196. 196.

    Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 145.

  197. 197.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 7, Rn. 25 mit entsprechenden Nachweisen.

  198. 198.

    Für Territorialverträge siehe unten.

  199. 199.

    Siehe beispielsweise die Positionen von der UdSSR, Mongolei, Ungarn, Weißrussland, Bulgarien und DDR, Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 14 f., Rn. 51.

  200. 200.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 7, Rn. 24.

  201. 201.

    Überraschenderweise sprach sich außerdem auch Tonga gegen den von der ILC gewählten Ansatz aus:

    „The Government of Tonga complained that the Commission had not taken adequate account of the general declaration of succession made by Tonga on 18 June 1970 and addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It maintained that the theoretical basis of article 11 was not supported by the modern practice of newly-independent States which had made general declarations of succession to treaties, with the intention of keeping rights gained by them from treaties, except where the treaties were inapplicable in the new circumstances or "involved fundamental and not merely incidental restraints upon sovereignty". The Commission had put too much stress on the burdens as distinct from the benefits of treaties […].[…]The intention of the Government of Tonga when it issued its general declaration was not to claim freedom to pick and choose but freedom to examine its treaties by reference to objective legal criteria to ascertain if they were in force.”

    Vallat ordnete diese Äußerung Tonga als atypisch für einen neuen Staat ein:

    „[T]he attitude of the Government of Tonga seems to be coloured by its own assessment of its position as a former "protected State", which is not typical of the position of most formerly dependent territories.”

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 7, Rn. 26 f., mit weiteren Nachweisen.

  202. 202.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 7, Rn. 26 mit entsprechendem Nachweis.

  203. 203.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 9, Rn. 27 mit entsprechendem Nachweis.

  204. 204.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 9, Rn. 29.

  205. 205.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 54.

  206. 206.

    Siehe Teil II.

  207. 207.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 54 f., Rn. 2.

  208. 208.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 297.

  209. 209.

    Bartoš, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 293, 297.

  210. 210.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 104, Rn. 66.

  211. 211.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 55, Rn. 4.

  212. 212.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 54.

  213. 213.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 55 f., Rn. 8. Siehe hierzu schon oben, Teil II, Kapitel 2. Ähnlich meint Koskenniemi, das Recht der Staatennachfolge sei aus dem Problem des fundamentalen Wandels der Umstände aus dem Recht der Verträge erwachsen. Koskenniemi, Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre, in Eisemann/Koskenniemi (Hrsg.), Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts (2000), S. 65, 103.

  214. 214.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 104 f., Rn. 70.

  215. 215.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 56, Rn. 8.

  216. 216.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 56, Rn. 9.

  217. 217.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 56, Rn. 10.

  218. 218.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 56, Rn. 10.

  219. 219.

    Waldock, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, ILC-Yearbook (1969, II), S. 45, 57, Rn. 14.

  220. 220.

    Vgl. dazu allgemein auch Craven, The Decolonization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties (2007), S. 120 ff.

  221. 221.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 106, Rn. 78 ff.

  222. 222.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 106 f., Rn. 82 ff.

  223. 223.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 106, Rn. 81.

  224. 224.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 109, Rn. 96.

  225. 225.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 109, Rn. 97.

  226. 226.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 109, Rn. 101.

  227. 227.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 110, Rn. 103.

  228. 228.

    Bedjaoui, UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1968, II), S. 94, 110, Rn. 104.

  229. 229.

    Siehe oben, Teil II.

  230. 230.

    Siehe Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 10, Rn. 31.

  231. 231.

    Maloney, Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885, 905 f.

  232. 232.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 10, Rn. 31.

  233. 233.

    Vallat, UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, ILC-Yearbook (1974, II, 1), S. 1, 10, Rn. 32.

  234. 234.

    Eine ähnliche Regelung findet sich in Artikel 4 WKSVAS.

  235. 235.

    Lachs, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, ILC-Yearbook (1963, II), S. 260, 261, Rn. 14.

Literatur

  • Bartoš, Milan: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 293-297

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/ 226, Third Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1971, II), S. 131-169

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/204 and Corr. 1, First Report on Succession of States in Respect of Rights and Duties resulting from Sources other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, II), S. 94-117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/216/REV.1, Second Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, II), S. 69-100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui, Mohammed: UN Doc A/CN.4/322 and Corr. 1 & Add. 1 & 2, Eleventh Report on Succession of States in Respect of Matters other than Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1979, II, 1), S. 67-124

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Taslim Olawale: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Memorandum, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 282-284

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly, UN Doc A/Res/16/1686, Future Work in the Field of the Codification and Progressive Development of International Law (18 December 1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly, UN Doc Res 1902 (XVIII), Report of the International Law Commission (18. November 1963)

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/6309/Rev.l, Report of the Commission to the General Assembly, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966/II), S. 169–363

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR.702, Summary Record of the 702nd Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, I), S. 189-196

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachs, Manfred: UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Report by the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 260-299

    Google Scholar 

  • Skubiszewki, Krzysztof: Dissenting Opinion, East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment (30. Juni 1995), ICJ-Reports (1995), S. 224-277

    Google Scholar 

  • Sub-Committee on Succession of States and Governments, UN Doc A/CN.4/160 and Corr. 1, Summary Record of the 4th Meeting, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1963, II), S. 263-266

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallat, Francis: UN Doc A/CN.4/278 and Add. 1-6, First Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1974, II, 1), S. 1-88

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: Second Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, UN Doc A/CN.4/214 and Add. 1 and 2, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1969, II), S. 45-68

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: UN Doc A/CN.4/144 and Add. 1, First Report on the Law of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1962, II), S. 27-83

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: UN Doc A/CN.4/202, First Report on Succession of States and Governments in Respect of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1968, II), S. 87-93

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: UN Doc A/CN.4/224 and Add. 1, Third Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1970, II), S. 25-60

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: UN Doc A/CN.4/249, Fourth Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1971, II, 1), S. 143-156

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock, Humphrey: UN Doc A/CN.4/256 an Add. 1-4, Fifth Report on Succession in Respect of Treaties, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1972, II), S. 1-59

    Google Scholar 

  • Abi-Saab, Georges M.: The Newly Independent States and the Rules of International Law: An Outline, 8 Howard Law Journal (1962), S. 95–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, Herbert W.: The Work of the International Law Commission, 17 Judge Advocate General of the Navy Journal (1963), S. 56–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Castrén, Erik: On State Succession in Practice and Theory, 24 Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret (1954), S. 55–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Lung-Fong: State Succession Relating to Unequal Treaties, Archon Books Hamden (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Craven, Matthew: The Decolonialization of International Law: State Succession and the Law of Treaties, Oxford University Press (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eisemann, Pierre Michel/Koskenniemi, Martti (Hrsg.): Hague Academy of International Law: State Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Den Haag/Boston/London (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Taslim Olawale: Africa and the Development of International Law, A.W. Sijthoff Leiden/Oceana Publications Inc. New York (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius, Hugo: Mare liberum, sive de Iure quod Batavis competit ad Indicana Commercia Dissertation, Biblio-Verlag Osnabrück (1918/1935 [1978])

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, James N.: Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Wealth and Resources, 50 American Journal of International Law (1956), S. 854–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, C. Wilfred: State Succession in Respect of Law-Making Treaties, 29 British Yearbook of International Law (1952), S. 105–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, Arthur Berriedale: The Theory of State Succession: With Special Reference to English and Colonial Law, Waterlow and Sons London (1907)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, F. Allan: Nationalization: Effective Compensation and International Law, 4 Virginia Journal of International Law (1964), S. 97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht, Hersch: Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law: With Special Reference to International Arbitration, Longmans, Green and Co. London (1927)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, Chin Leng: Neither Sheep nor Peacocks: T. O. Elias and Post-colonial International Law, 21 Leiden Journal of International Law (2008), S. 295–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, Mathew G: Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: The Vienna Convention of 1978, 19 Virginia Journal of International Law (1978/1979), S. 885–914

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair, Arnold Duncan: The Law of Treaties, Clarendon Press Oxford (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • Merican, Tunku Sofiah Jewa: The Third World and International Law, University Microfilms International Ann Arbor/London (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutua, Makau Wa: What Is TWAIL?, 94 American Society of International Law Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (2000), S. 31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, William V. (Hrsg.): The New Nations in International Law and Diplomacy, Stevens & Sons London (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: Independence and State Succession to Treaties, 38 British Yearbook of International Law (1962), S. 84–180

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: International Law, Stevens & Sons London (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: Reflections on the State Succession Convention, 39 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (1979), S. 725–739

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: State Succession and Problems of Treaty Interpretation, 58 American Journal of International Law (1964), S. 41–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Band I, Cambridge University Press (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, Daniel Patrick: The Law of State Succession, Cambridge University Press (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  • Obregón, Liliana: Noted for Dissent: The International Life of Alejandro Álvarez, 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006), S. 983–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, Lassa: International Law, Band 1, Longmans Green London (8. Auflage 1955)

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulose, T. T.: Succession in International Law: A Study of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, Orient Longman New Delhi (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenborn, Walther: Staatensukzession, Verlag von W. Kohlhammer Berlin/Stuttgart/Leipzig (1913)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, Prakash S.: New Nations and the Law of Nations, A. W. Sijthoff Leyden (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, Prakash S.: Perspective of the Newly Independent States on the Binding Quality of International Law, 14 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1965), S. 121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udokang, Okon: Succession of New States to International Treaties, Oceana Publications, Inc. New York (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vattel, Emer: Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, Aux Depens de la Compagnie Leiden (1758)

    Google Scholar 

  • Who’s Who in the United Nations and Related Agencies, Arno Press New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wiesbaden, Deutschland

    Anna Krueger

Authors
  1. Anna Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Published by Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krueger, A. (2018). Kapitel 8: Die völkerrechtliche Debatte das um Recht der Staatennachfolge. In: Die Bindung der Dritten Welt an das postkoloniale Völkerrecht. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 264. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54413-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54413-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54412-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54413-6

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation