The world has witnessed several instances of state succession, where one state takes over the territory of another. These transitions raise complex legal questions, especially regarding the continuity of treaty obligations. A notable dilemma arises when the successor state refuses to honor the treaties signed by the predecessor.
This article explores one such scenario where State ‘A’ succeeded State ‘B’, and international pressure mounted on State ‘A’ to comply with former treaty obligations. However, State ‘A’ refused. Let’s examine whether its refusal holds ground in international law.
Facts of the Case
State ‘A’ assumed control over the entire territory of State ‘B’ following a complete succession. This transition occurred peacefully, with no opposition from State ‘B’ or the international community. Before its dissolution, State ‘B’ had signed numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties related to trade, defense, human rights, and environmental protection.
After the succession, international bodies and treaty partners urged State ‘A’ to fulfill these obligations. They argued that continuity was essential to preserve legal stability and international cooperation. Despite these appeals, State ‘A’ publicly refused to accept any of State ‘B’s treaty commitments, citing its sovereignty and the desire to renegotiate terms.
Issues of the Case
- Is a successor state legally bound to honor the treaty obligations of the predecessor?
- Can a state invoke sovereignty as a basis for refusing these obligations?
- Does international law impose any compulsory obligations on the successor in such scenarios?
- What legal consequences follow from the refusal to recognize existing treaties?
Principles and Related Case
The law governing this scenario comes under State Succession in respect of Treaties, which is extensively dealt with in the Vienna Convention on Succession of ccc (1978). Although not universally ratified, this convention reflects widely accepted legal principles.
Key Rule of the Vienna Convention (Article 16):
A newly independent state is not obliged to maintain the treaty obligations of the predecessor unless it expressly consents or is bound by customary international law.
However, Article 34 lays down a different rule for succession of states in cases of unification or dissolution. It states that successor states must continue treaties that relate to boundaries or rights that benefit third states. Thus, in selective circumstances, the successor cannot withdraw from treaty obligations arbitrarily.
The keyword in assessing this scenario is “continuity versus clean-slate”—a concept often debated in international law. The “clean-slate” doctrine allows a new state to start afresh, while the “continuity” doctrine holds that treaty obligations continue unless lawfully terminated.
Related Case: Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) – ICJ (1997)
In this case, Slovakia took over treaty obligations from Czechoslovakia. The ICJ held that unless expressly denounced or renegotiated, treaty responsibilities could be transferred to the successor state to ensure legal stability and the protection of international commitments.
Judgment
State ‘A’s refusal to fulfill treaty obligations raises serious legal and diplomatic concerns. While international law allows a newly formed state some flexibility under the “clean-slate” theory, this principle applies mostly to former colonies or states gaining independence under unusual circumstances.
In this case, State ‘A’ inherited the territory of State ‘B’ in its entirety, making it a successor rather than a new or independent state. It also enjoyed uninterrupted use of infrastructure, defense systems, and benefits of treaties that State ‘B’ previously signed. Therefore, it cannot selectively accept benefits and reject obligations.
Moreover, many treaties—especially those involving human rights, environment, and territorial boundaries—create erga omnes obligations. These duties apply universally and survive state succession.
Considering the elements of international treaty law, State ‘A’ cannot lawfully deny obligations that maintain global order or benefit third parties. While it may renegotiate or withdraw from specific treaties following proper legal channels, outright refusal violates the principles of good faith and pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).
