Succession of states: By “state succession” is meant the factual situation, which arises when one state is substituted for another over a given territory.
M. P. Tandon: “Succession of states” means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory.
Predecessor state and successor state: The state which has been replaced by another state on the occurrence of a succession of state is termed as the “predecessor state” while the state which has replaced is called the “successor state”.
Succession to rights and obligations: Starke mentions that we are principally conceived with the transmission of right or obligations from states which have altered and lost that identity to other states or entities. Therefore, the terminology “state succession” is somewhat inappropriate and the terminology “succession to right and obligations” looks more suitable.
Legal question: When this take place, a succession or substitution, in fact of one state by another, the legal question arises that as to what extent there is a transmission of the rights and obligations of the old state to the new.
Kinds of succession: Succession of states is of two kinds, i.e., universal succession and partial succession.
1. Universal succession: Universal succession takes place when one state is completely absorbed by another either through conquest or through voluntary merger or by breaking into independent parts.
2. Partial succession: Partial succession takes place when a part of the territory of a state, for instance, breaks off in a result and by winning independence becomes itself a new state or when one state acquires a part or the territory of another state, or when a protectorate becomes a full sovereign state.
State succession: State succession falls under the following kinds:
1. Succession to treaty rights and obligation: There is no general rule that all treaty rights and obligations pass. But when a treaty has acquired the force of customary International Law, it will be binding on the new state.
It seems to be a generally accepted that the legal treaties devolve automatically upon the new state, as about boundaries, devolve automatically upon the new state, a servitude, or quasi servitude.
2. Succession to non-fiscal contractual treaties and obligations: The extent to which those pass is highly debatable. The Successor State must respect a contractual right, which is the nature of a vested or acquired right.
A contractual right, which is solely of the nature of a claim to un-liquidated damages, does not survive the change of sovereignty.
3. Succession and concessionary contracts: The general weight of practice and opinion lies in the direction of holding the obligation under concessionary contacts are terminated upon changes of sovereignty resulting in the extinction of the predecessor state, unless indeed the successor state renews the concession.
4. Succession and public debts: There is a great divergence of opinion on the question whether the successor state is obliged to take over public debts.
But it appears that the most commonly applied principle is that he who takes the benefit must also take the burden. So where an identified region has benefited by public expenditure to an ascertainable extent, then whoever takes over that part of the territory also takes over part of public debt which corresponds to the benefit.
5. Succession and private or municipal law rights: Such of these rights as have crystallized into vested or acquired rights must be respected by the successor state more especially where the former municipal law of the predecessor state has contained to operate, subject to alteration, as though to guarantee the sanctity of the rights.
6. Succession and claims in tort: There is no general principle of succession to delictual liabilities. According to the principles annunciated in two well-known cases The Robert E. Brown claim and the Hawaiian claims, the successor state is not bound to respect an un-liquidated claim for damage in tort.
7. Succession and public funds and property: It is generally recognized that the successor state takes over the public funds and public property, whether moveable or immovable of the predecessor state.
8. Succession and nationality: The problem here is whether and to what extent the successor state can claim so its nationals’ citizens of the predecessor state. Prima facie, person living or domiciled in the territory, subject of change, acquires the nationality of the succession.
Geneva Convention, 1949 on Prisoners of War: Four conventions were concluded at Geneva in 1949 relating to:
1. The treatment of prisoners of war.
2. The amelioration (amendment, correction) of the condition of the wounded and sick in Armed Forces in the field.
3. The Amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick and shipwrecked (sinking) members of Armed Forces at sea.
4. The protection of civilian persons at the time of war.
Prisoners of War: One of the convention concluded at Geneva in 1949 related to the treatment of prisoners of war, which applies to any armed conflict recognized or unrecognized arising between the contracting parties.
Persons to be treated as Prisoners of War: Under Article 4 of following categories of persons are to be treated as Prisoners of War:
1. Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of organized resistance movements.
3. Persons who accompany the armed forces with actually being members thereof.
4. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Powers.
5. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces.
Treatment of Prisoners of War: With regard to Prisoners of War they must be cared for and treated with humanity.
Prohibits violence to life: The Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits violence to life and person of prisoners.
Prohibits humiliating treatment: Under the conventions, humiliating or degrading treatment with the prisoner is prohibited.
Physical or mental torture: No physical or mental torture is allowed to inflict on prisoners to compel them to give information.
Removal from the danger areas: After capture the Prisoners of War have to be removed from the danger area.
Termination of capacity: Capacity may be terminated by repatriation, accommodation in natural countries, release, escape, or death of prisoners.
Sick and wounded: The convention for the amelioration (editing, amendment, correction, or improvement) of the condition of the wounded and sick in Armed Forces in the field provides that sick or wounded persons officially attached to armies must be respected. They also to be protected and cared to without distinction of nationality, religion, race, sex, or political opinion.
Hospital zones: The convention also provides for the possibility of establishing by agreement of the parties hospital zones for protecting the wounded and sick.
Treatment of dead soldiers: Article 15 & 16 relate to the treatment of the dead soldiers. They have made an obligatory provision for reciprocal and speedy communication by the belligerents of the names and identity of the wounded and dead and for collection and transmission of articles found on the battle field or on the dead.
Medical transport: Article 36 of the convention protects aircraft used as a means of medical transport for the time they are used in transporting medical personnel and material and evacuating (void, remove) wounded and sick.
Role of International Law including individuals and non-state entities with reference to the opinions of jurists and modern practices: The question can be discussed conveniently with reference to the comments of those who assert that the International Law is exclusively concerned with the states and of those who affirm that individuals and non-state entities also are the subjects of International Law and with reference to certain modern practices.
States as subject of International Law: L. Oppenheim and his followers comment that since the International Law is based on the common consent of the states and not of individual human being, the states solely and exclusively are the subjects of International Law.
Law for the conduct of states: The subscribers of this view claim that the International Law is a law for the international conduct for states and not of their citizen.
Individuals as subject of International Law: Kelson has analyzed the notion of a state and affirms that it is purely a technical legal concept serving to embrace the totality of legal rules applying to a group of persons within a defined areas.
Individual alone are subjects: He states that in the ultimate analysis, individuals alone are the subjects of International Law. The rights and duties of states are only the rights and duties of individuals who compose them.
Individuals and non-state entities as subjects of the International Law: The authorities and jurists, after and before the out break of 2nd world war inclined to the concept that the International Law is not exclusively concerned with states. That was because of certain developments.
|