State succession in international law involves one state replacing another in responsibility for a territory's international relations, often due to political changes like decolonization, unification, or separation, impacting treaties, rights, and obligations.So we must know about the state succession in the public international law or in international law. So I must tell you what is state succession. So state succession is a concept in international law that happens when one state replaces another in responsibility for the international relations of a territory.This transformation can be due to the political changes like decolonization, colonization, unification or separation etc. So I will briefly explain what is colonization then you will be able to understand it.So colonization is a process whereby the European powers like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy occupied and established their hold in overseas territories like Africa, Asia, the new world. So let me explain what is new world. New world means the North America and Latin America. Christopher Columbus an European discovered the new world in late 15th century and the European powers initially the Portuguese and Spain established their hold in that continent world longest continent and the Latin America was equally divided between Portuguese and Spanish states. So and North America was occupied by British, France, Spain, these three major powers and unlike colonization of India the North America and Latin America the entire land mass that was occupied by the Europeans and European immigrants reached there to and they established colonies and they decided to settle there permanently. But they carried all the European cultures, languages and religions etc. That was the process of colonization and later the African continent was also colonized by the European powers especially the southern part of Africa. The northern part of Africa, I mean the sub Saharan belt was also colonized by the European powers and Australia which was discovered in the year 17 I think 1778 by one British James Cook. So it was totally colonized by the British. So that was the process of colonization but the decolonization happened after the second world war the India became an independent state. So in this respect I must tell you that British India was succeeded by two independent states the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. That is a best example of state succession.And most African nations became independent after second world war. And the Caribbean islands ruled by British like Saint Lucia Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica etc became independent states. But in this respect I must tell you the differences between Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA with the other states like India, South Africa, Nigeria etc. First big difference between Australia and India is that in case of India the Europeans never came here to settle permanently. While in case of Australia, Canada and USA, you see the European immigrants totally colonized it to settle there permanently. That's why you will see that Australia was totally colonized by the British and most Australians are now descendants of European immigrants. So that's why in case of Australia, Canada, USA or New Zealand we should not use the term the decolonization. Rather we must say that the power of governance was transferred to them.Of course the Americans had fought a war with their mother country.But Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders were given dominion status later independence by British.That's why for them Britain is the mother country but for India Britain is not mother country like Britain happens to be for Australians. But we may say that Britain is a mother country to for India but in another sense. That is we inherited their culture, their language even our legal system etc. So that is the main difference. So and the state succession may happen because of unification of two territories or separation. For example Sudan separated into two sovereign state in 2011 and unification can also happen if one state voluntarily merge with another state that is also the example of state succession. But the issues involving state succession have far reaching consequences.For example the British India executed several treaties with foreign countries.Now what would happen those countries?So definitely India and Pakistan both nations have to inherit it.For example the Duran line that was created by British to separate or at least demarcate the recognized border between British India and Afghanistan. Now that is the main bone of contention between Pakistan and India. Likewise the McMahon line the de facto border between India and People's Republic of China in 1914 that today's honor was separated or an imaginary line was drawn by one British McMahon and the Chinese still refused to recognize it. Because for them that line was drawn from the strength I mean at that time Britain was in an advantageous position and only from their strength they impose it. Because Britain was militarily far more superior than Chinese at that that time. That means you may call it the Britain created the McMahon line from the position of strength and Chinese were forced.So understanding how state succession operate is essential not only for international legal students but also for governments.It dictates the rights and duties of the successor and predecessor. So state succession in international law refers to the legal process where one state replace another in control over a territory and assume certain rights and obligation.As already been told that can happen mainly because of decolonization and unification.So I will give you some examples I mean some circumstances.First is the decolonization. Second is important that is dissolution. So USSR's dissolution is the best example.Once mightiest empire of 20th century USSR disintegrated and 15 new states came into existence. But Russia became the legitimate successor of USSR. The international community recognized Russia as the legitimate successor of USSR.And same thing happened with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.Yugoslavia splitted in 1992.Several new states came into existence like Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia etc. And Czechoslovakia was also officially splitted and two new sovereign state came into existence the Czech Republic and Slovakia. So that happened and now we may say that Czechoslovakia was succeeded by Czech Republic and Slovakia.But two state also merge like the north and South Yemen merge in 1990.Or in case of annexation we may say that the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2000 2014 is one of the best example of annexation. Or in case of unification we may say the unification of Germany when Germany unified in 1990.So there are two types of state succession. First is the universal succession when a new state is completely assumed the international personality of predecessor.So we may talk about East and West Germany in 1990. The Federal Republic of Germany or FRG continued as the same international entity and carrying forward obligations and right. A partial succession I mean in case of partial succession only some parts of the state territory undergo change for example after disintegration of USSR several newly formed Republics like Ukraine and Kazakhstan emerged and each assume partial responsibilities and asset. That means some of the responsibilities I mean the former responsibilities of USSR had not only passed to Russia but also passed to Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Now what is the theory of state succession? First is the continuity theory. This theory supports the continuation of the predecessor state obligation. Next the clean slate theory. Advocates of this theory says that the successor state is not bound by any of the predecessors obligations, duties or debt.But I disagree with it.Now Republic of India is still carrying the burden of some duties obligations which were signed by the British government. And what are the consequences of state succession? First the state succession result in a shift of numerous responsibilities and entitlement. Number one the political rights and duties, second the rights and natives or local rights. After dissolution of USSR Russia was accepted as the state successor of the USSR and Russia was given the permanent member of the security council of UNO. Remember the UNO was founded by USSR, USA and Britain mainly. So USSR was the permanent member of security council having veto powers. The security council is the most powerful organ of UNO. The main responsibility of security council is to maintain international peace and order. In exceptional cases the security council is empowered to use force.That happened in case of Iraq. In 1990 Iraq annex Kuwait Kuwait the oil rich kingdom of Middle East was annexed by Iraqi at that time Iraqi was ruled by Saddam Hussein a dictator and he sent a huge army to annex it. So within few hours the Kuwaiti resistance collapsed and Kuwait was proclaimed a province of Iraq. But next day the security council immediately called for an emergency meeting and the members of security council met and the five permanent members namely the France, UK, USA, USSR and China all condemned that action and the security council authorized use of force to liberate Kuwait. Of course the USSR and China did not approve it but other countries approved it.So Saddam Hussein was given a deadline I mean a ultimatum to vacate or leave the Kuwait before 15 January 1991 or would face the consequences. So after end of the deadline the Americans lead western forces launch a huge aerial bombing and within few weeks the Iraqis were forced to retreat. So there are several examples where the security council can authorize use of force. The Korea war was the first example of it when the security council authorized the use of force. That happened in 1950 when the Douglas MacArthur was appointed as the supreme commander of the allied forces. Next the rights of the natives and local rights one of the most sensitive issues involved rights of individual residing in the newly succeeded territory.Citizenship is another question.So that happened in case of India. Now British India can be divided into three sovereign states India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But in 1947 when British India was officially partitioned the citizenship was a big issue and the government of India decided to confer the citizenship status to all the Indians who or whose parents were born in the British India I mean the British India that was ruled under the government of India Act 1935. And the Indians I mean the British Indians under the government of India Act 1935 who left India to settle Pakistan they lost their citizenship and those British Indians who came to Republic of India were given that citizenship right because they were Indians under the government of India Act 1935. And the property rights yes in case of property rights the Indian refugees Indian means the British Indian refugees who reached the Republic of India from today's Pakistan they were given the same property rights. I mean a refugee from West Punjab reach East Punjab and he left in West Punjab 20 acres of land and he was given the 20 acres of land in Republic of India. So that way in India solved the problems of properties rights.And as far as civil and political matter concerned.In 1947 we did not have much problem because India Indian Republic was created on secularism. And the basis of Indian Republic was created on respect for basic fundamental rights.So at that time Indian did not have any problems.So what are the effects of state succession?It may create bilateral treaties or multilateral treaties. I mean it may create problems in case of bilateral treaties or multilateral treaties.But that depends on negotiation and discussion.So the Vienna convention on succession of state in respect of treaties. There a convention that was adopted in 1978 that convention provides some guidelines, some guidance. But that convention is not yet ratified universally. So at last I am telling you that state succession is a complex and multifaceted areas of international law that governs the transfer rights, duties and assets from one sovereign entity to another. Whether it arises from peaceful unification that might occur because of violent conflict.But the process carries significant legal implication for individuals, governments and international organizations. From treaties and debts to citizenship and sovereignty.This might create some problems.These have to be handled carefully and often requires international negotiation and legal interpretation.So this is a very complex issue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more