Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T10:07:46.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Marian Nash (Leich)
Marian Nash (Leich)*
Affiliation:
Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , October 1995 , pp. 761 - 771
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

see page no 762 note 1 American Embassy Kievto Dept. of State, telegram No. 5960 (May 19, 1995).

Article 34 of the UN Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, Aug. 23, 1978, reads:

1. When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate to form one or more States, whether or not the predecessor State continues to exist:

(a) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of each successor State so formed;

(b) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect only of that part of the territory of the predecessor State which has become a successor State continues in force in respect of that successor State alone.

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:

(a) the States concerned otherwise agree; or

(b) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the successor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation.

UN Doc. A/CONF.80/31 (1978), reprinted in 17 ILM 1488, 1509 (1978).

see page no 762 note 2 10 Stat. 1105, TS No. 300.

see page no 762 note 1 See 89 AJIL 99–102 (1995).

see page no 763 note 2 31 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 752–53 (May 8, 1995), 6 DEPT. ST. DISPATCH 397 (1995).

see page no 766 note 3 6 DEFT. ST. DISPATCH at 446, 450–52.

see page no 766 note 1 Apr. 18, 1961, 23 UST 3227, 500 UNTS 95.

see page no 766 note 2 See 89 AJIL 96–99 (1995).

see page no 767 note 3 For the agreement of December 14, 1994, see Dept. of State File No. P95 0056/0176-0178. For the notes of March 2, 1995, see, for Palau-U.S., id. at 0056/0181; and for the U.S. response, id. at 0056/0182-0183.

For the Compact of Free Association with Palau, see Pub. L. No. 99-658, tit. II, §201, 100 Stat. 3673, 3678 (1986) (48U.S.C. §1681 note (1988)). See further Implementation of Compact of Free Association with Palau, Pub. L. No. 101-219, tit. I, 103 Stat. 1870 (1989) (48 U.S.C. §1681 note (Supp. V 1993)). See also [1981–1988] 1 CUMULATIVE DIGEST 451–54.

see page no 771 note 1 S. TREATY DOC. NO. 6, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. at V–XII (1995).