CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CEREN ZEYNEP PIRIM CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ that every case takes shape in the context of different political, ideological and social elements hinders the emergence of uniform rules in this area of international law. In other words, State succession is not governed by customary international rules. 3 This assessment has even more salience when it comes to State succession to active international responsibility, thus whether successor States inherit the obligation to make reparation arising from the internationally wrongful acts committed by their predecessor. State practice is inconsistent and contradictory even in like cases. 4 Therefore, principles regulating this subject cannot be determined via State practice. 5 Besides, while two Conventions have been adopted, respectively in 1978 and 1983, 6 concerning succession to international treaties and to State property, archives and debts, State succession to international responsibility has never been subject to a universal treaty. Indeed, the previous works of the International Law Commission on State succession had left the issue of succession to international responsibility for possible development in the future. This field has been finally included in the programme of the Commission at its sixty-ninth session in 2017 and the work under the rapporteurship of Professor Pavel Šturma is still in progress. Though the first two Reports on Succession of States in Respect of State Responsibility adopted respectively in 2017 and 2018 refer both to the legal doctrine 7 which proves that in this field theory comes first. However, regrettably, the theory appears to have lost its way. Indeed, the law of State succession initially witnessed a conflict between two ‘extreme’ teachings, 8 the universal succession and the non-succession theories, the latter being prevalent. However, a modern succession theory is being developed by the scholars who are rejecting the traditional non- succession principle and arguing that the issue needs to be analysed in light of the general principles of law. This paper, after reviewing the foundations and main features of the theories put forward to date in the field of State succession to international responsibility without reference to either inconsistent state practice or to jurisprudence, focuses then on the main arguments 3 Rein Müllerson, ‘Law and Politics in Succession of States : International Law on Succession of States’ in Geneviève Burdeau and Brigitte Stern (eds), Dissolution, continuation et succession en Europe de l’Est (Cedin Paris I 1994), 17 ; Vladimir D Degan, ‘Création et disparition de l’Etat (à la lumière du démembrement de trois fédérations multiethniques en Europe)’ (1999) 279 RCADI 195, 300 ; Pierre M Eisemann, ‘Rapport du Directeur de la section de langue française du Centre’ in Pierre M Eisemann and Martti Koskenniemi (eds), La succession d’Etats : la codification à l’épreuve des faits / State Succession : Codification Tested Against the Facts (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2000), 51-3. 4 See the Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, Fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), 52, para. 3. 5 Matthew Craven, ‘The Problem of State Succession and the Identity of States under International Law’ (1998) 9 EJIL 142, 161. 6 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1978, stated above; Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts 1983, Not yet in force, UN Official Records, Sales No: F.94.V.6. 7 First Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly on Succession of States in Respect of State responsibility, by Pavel Šturma, Sixty-Ninth Session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/708 (2017), 9-11; Second report on succession of States in respect of State responsibility, by Pavel Šturma, Seventieth Session, UN Doc. A/ CN.4/719 (2018), 27-31. 8 Rein Müllerson, ‘The Continuity and Succession of States, by Reference to the Former USSR and Yugoslavia’ (1993) 42 ICLQ 473, 474.

112