State Succession to International Responsibility /

State Succession to International Responsibility /

In the context of the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the independence of Montenegro and the unification of Germany, can a new State be held responsible for wrongful acts committed before its independence by the predecessor State? This book is the most comprehensive analysis of State pr...

Full description

Saved in:

Main Author: Dumberry, Patrick (Author)

Format: eBook

Language: English

Published: Leiden ; Boston : Brill | Nijhoff, 2024.

Series: International Law E-Books Online, Collection 2024.
Theory and Practice of Public International Law ; 9.

Subjects:

Government liability (International law)
State succession.

Online Access: Login to view Source

Tags: Add Tag

No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Call Number: KZ4024

Save to List Photographic Request Become a member
Table of Contents:
  • Foreword to the First Edition (2007)
  • Acknowledgments to the Second Edition
  • Abbreviations
  • Part 1
  • General Introduction
  •   General Introduction of Part 1
  •  1 The Issue Addressed in This Study
  •  2 The Objective of This Study
  •  3 Relevance of This Study When I Wrote the First Edition of This Book
  •  3.1  The Question Had Never Been Addressed by the  ilc  or by Any International Law Scientific Institution
  •  3.2  The Doctrinal Analysis Was Very Limited and Generally Unsatisfactory
  •  4 Scope of This Study
  •  4.1  Meaning of State Succession
  •  4.2  Classification of the Different Types of Succession of States
  •  4.3  Fundamental Principles of State Responsibility in International Law
  •  4.4  The Term "Internationally Wrongful Act" Should Be Used Instead of "Tort"
  •  4.5  This Study Does Not Deal with the Regime of State Responsibility for Breaches of Rules of State Succession
  •  4.6  This Study Does Not Deal with the Issues of "Odious Debts" and "War Damage" between the Predecessor State and the Successor State
  •  4.7  This Study Does Not Deal with Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by the Predecessor State against Its Own Nationals/Corporations
  •  4.8  This Study Does Not Deal with Wrongs Committed by Non-state Actors
  • Part 2
  • Succession of States to the Obligation to Repair
  •   General Introduction of Part 2
  • 1   Analysis of Scholarship
  •  1 Introduction
  •  2 The Doctrine of Non-succession
  •  2.1  General Overview of the Doctrine
  •  2.2  The Arguments Invoked in Support of the Doctrine
  •  3 Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
  • 2   Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
  •  1 Introductory Remarks on the Doctrinal Analysis of State Practice
  •  2 Incorporation of State
  •  2.1  Older Examples of Annexation of States Support the Principle of Non-succession
  •  2.2  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  2.3  Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
  •  3 Unification of States
  •  3.1  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  3.2  State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
  •  4 Dissolution of State
  •  4.1  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  4.2  Ancient State Practice Generally Supports the Principle of Non-succession
  •  4.3  Modern State Practice Supports the Principle of Succession
  •  5 Cession and Transfer of Territory
  •  5.1  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  5.2  The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
  •  5.3  A Special Case: Acts Committed by Autonomous Entities
  •  6 Separation
  •  6.1  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  6.2  The Continuing State Remains Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
  •  6.3  Examples Where the Principle of Succession Was Applied
  •  7 Newly Independent States
  •  7.1  The Position Adopted in This Study and That of the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  7.2  Examples Where the Continuing State Remained Responsible for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
  •  7.3  Examples where the Successor State Took Over the Obligations Arising from the Commission of Internationally Wrongful Acts
  •  8 Conclusion to Chapter 2
  • 3   Analysis of Specific Issues
  •  1 Introduction
  •  2 The Predecessor State Recognises Its Liability for an Internationally Wrongful Act
  •  3 A Judicial Body Finds the Predecessor State Responsible for an Internationally Wrongful Act
  •  4 The Successor State Accepts to Take Over the Responsibility for an Internationally Wrongful Act
  •  5 The Successor State Continues an Internationally Wrongful Act Committed by the Predecessor State
  •  5.1  Acts Committed by the Successor State after the Date of Succession
  •  5.2  Acts Committed by the Predecessor State before the Date of Succession
  •  6 An Insurrectional Movement Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act during its Struggle to Establish a New State
  •  7 An Autonomous Government Commits an Internationally Wrongful Act
  •  7.1  The Position Adopted by the Institute and the  ilc 
  •  7.2  The Application of This Principle to Different Types of Succession
  •  8 The Use of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
  •  8.1  The Principle of Unjust Enrichment
  •  8.2  The Principle Has Been Mentioned by Courts Dealing with Issues of State Succession
  •  8.3  Analysis of Scholarship and the Position Adopted in This Study
  •  8.4  Application of the Principle to Different Types of Succession of States
  •  9 The Use of the Principle of Equity to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
  •  10 The Relevance of the Territorial Factor to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
  •  10.1  The Existence of a "Direct Link" between the Consequences of a Wrongful Act and a Territory
  •  10.2  Violation of Territorial Regime Obligations
  •  11 The Relevance of Treaty Succession to Resolve Issues of Succession to Responsibility
  •  12 Internationally Wrongful Acts Having a Special Character
  •  12.1  Commission of "Odious" Acts
  •  12.2 Breach of jus cogens  Norms
  • 4   General Conclusion to Part 2
  • Part 3
  • Succession of States to the Right to Reparation
  •   General Introduction of Part 3
  • 5   The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Directly Affecting the Predecessor State
  •  1 Introduction
  •  2 Analysis of Scholarship
  •  2.1  The Doctrine of Non-succession
  •  2.2  Challenges and Criticisms of the Doctrine of Non-succession
  •  3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
  •  3.1  Unification and Incorporation of States
  •  3.2  Dissolution of State
  •  3.3  Separation
  •  3.4  Newly Independent States
  •  4 Conclusion to Chapter 5
  • 6   The Commission of an Internationally Wrongful Act Affecting a National of the Predecessor State
  •  1 Introduction
  •  2 Analysis of Scholarship
  •  2.1  The Rule of Continuous Nationality in Diplomatic Protection
  •  2.2  The Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality in the Context of State Succession
  •  2.3  The Parties Are Free to Exclude the Application of the Rule of Continuous Nationality
  •  2.4  The Rule of Continuous Nationality Is Not Appropriate in the Context of State Succession
  •  2.5  The Successor State Has a Right to Claim Reparation on Behalf of Its New Nationals for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed before the Date of Succession
  •  3 Analysis of State Practice and Case Law
  •  3.1  Cases Where Successor States Have Submitted Claims on Behalf of Their New Nationals
  •  3.2  State Practice Where Reparation Was Provided to the Successor State for Its New Nationals
  •  3.3  Cases Where the Rule of Continuous Nationality Was Applied
  •  3.4  The Specific Problem of Reparation Claims against the Former State of Nationality
  •  4 Conclusion to Chapter 6
  • Part 4
  • General Conclusion
  •   General Conclusion
  •  1 The Foundations of the Doctrine of Non-succession Are Not as Solid as They Appear to Be
  •  2 The Doctrine of Non-succession Remains supported by Many States
  •  3 Succession to the Obligation to Repair Essentially Depends on the Type of Succession Involved and on Whether the Predecessor State Continues to Exist
  •  4 State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Depends on the Different Factors and Circumstances
  • Involved in Each Case
  •  5 The Issue of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair should Ultimately be Resolved Based on the Application of Three Fundamental Equitable Principles
  •  6 Solutions to Problems of State Succession to the Obligation to Repair Remain Largely Based on the Consent of the Successor State
  •  7 The Successor State Has the Right to Claim Reparation for Internationally Wrongful Acts Committed by a Third State before the Date of Succession
  •  8 The Tendency in Favour of Continuity of Rights and Obligations Is in Accordance with Modern State Practice in Other Fields of State Succession
  • Annexes 1 to 3
  • Index.