Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T20:46:12.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Practice Concerning Treaty Succession in the Commonwealth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Hugh J. Lawford
Get access

Extract

Although a number of learned articles and even books have appeared recently on the subject of state succession, relatively little has been written about the practical problems faced by a new state seeking to establish the scope of its treaty obligations. An examination of these practical, even mundane, problems indicates that some of the current theoretical arguments are unreal, and that a shift of emphasis in discussion would be desirable.

The practical problems in defining a new state’s treaty obligations are illustrated well by the cases of new Commonwealth countries.

Since mid-1961, a research project at Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, has sought to determine which of the old British treaties continue to apply to Canada. Surprisingly enough, even an older Commonwealth country like Canada has not yet been able to reach a firm decision on this question. Thus, Professor (now Dean) Maxwell Cohen of McGill University was obliged to tell the Duke Conference on Canadian-American Treaty Relations in 1961 that existing Canadian publications were inadequate, and to urge that Canada's treaties be collected and published.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 5 , 1967 , pp. 3 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1967

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

1 See, among many others, Mankiewicz, , “Air Law Conventions and the New States,” 29 J. Air L. 52 (1963)Google Scholar; Fitzgerald, , “State Succession and Personal Treaties,” 11 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 843 (1962)Google Scholar; O’Connell, , “State Succession and Problems of Treaty Interpretation,” 58 Am. J. Int’l L. 41 (1964)Google Scholar, “Independence and Succession to Treaties,” 38 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 84 (1962) , “State Succession and the Effect upon Treaties of Entry into a Composite Relationship,” 39 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 54 (1963); Lester, , “State Succession to Treaties in the Commonwealth,” 12 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 475 (1963)Google Scholar; Green, , “Malaya/Singapore/Malaysia: Comments on State Competence, Succession and Continuity,” 2 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3 (1966)Google Scholar; LaForest, , “State Succession in the New Nations,” 60 Am. Soc. Int’l L., Proc, 103 (1966)Google Scholar; International Law Association Committee on State Succession to Treaties and Other Governmental Obligations, The Effect of Independence on Treaties (1965).

2 Cohen, , “Canada-United States Treaty Relations: Trends and Future Problems,” in Deener, (ed.), Canada-United States Treaty Relations 185 ff., esp. at 186 (1963)Google Scholar.

3 Verbit, , “State Succession in the New Nations,” 60 Am. Soc. Int’l L., Proc, 119, 120 (1966)Google Scholar.

4 Okunribido, Comment, ibid., 117, 118.

5 International Law Association Committee on State Succession etc., op. cit. supra note 1, at 116–17.

6 Verbit, , Review of The Effect of Independence on Treaties, by the International Law Association Committee on State Succession to Treaties and Other Governmental Obligations (1965), in 60 Am. J. Int’l L. 880 (1966)Google Scholar.

7 Uganda. Sessional Paper No. 2 of 1963. Quoted in International Law Association Committee on State Succession etc., op. cit. supra note 1, at 386-87.

8 Note of Feb. 24, 1964 from Prime Minister of Uganda to Secretary-General of United Nations: quoted, ibid., 375.

9 Supra note 3, at 119-20.

10 [1922] Gr. Brit. T.S. No. 1 (Cmd. 1571); 114 B.F.S.P. 356; 7 L.N.T.S. 279; 30 Hertslet’s Commercial Treaties 940; 14 Martens N.R.G. 3d ser., 430.

11 116 B.F.S.P. 506; 10 L.N.T.S. 463.

12 These facts are indicated in 150 Parl. Deb., H.C. (5th ser.) 655 (1922).

13 Hertslet’s Commercial Treaties. London, 1827–1925. 31 v.; Great Britain, Foreign Office. British and Foreign State Papers. London, 1841 . 163 v. to date; League of Nations. Treaty Series; Publication of Treaties and International Engagements Registered with the Secretariat of the League. Geneva, 1920–46. 205 v. in 211 ; United Nations. Treaty Series; Treaties and International Agreements Registered or Filed and Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations. New York, 1946/7- . 547 v. to date; Martens, Recueil de traites d’alliance, de paix, de treve … etc…. 1817–1944. 138 v. in 140.

14 The most useful handbook for Canada is Great Britain. Foreign Office. Handbook of commercial treaties, etc., with foreign powers (4th ed. London, 1931).

15 United Nations. Office of Legal Affairs. List of Treaty Collections (New York, 1956). (UN Doc. ST/LEG/5.)

16 Myers, , Manual of Collections of Treaties and of Collections relating to Treaties (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1922)Google Scholar.

17 For text, see 27 Martens, N.R.G. 3d ser., 686.

18 For text, see [1938] Gr. Brit. T.S. No. 71 (Cmd. 5888); 142 B.F.S.P. 139; 36 Martens, N.R.G. 3d ser., 338.

19 The particular exchange with Iceland is listed in the annual report of the Canadian Department of External Affairs for 1944–45, at 32.