¹ [1971] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Part 1, 214.

² Cf., e.g., Quadri, R., “Cours général de droit international public,” 113 Recueil des Cours 458-5A (1964) (hereafter RCADI);Google Scholar Brownlie, I., System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility, Part One, 37 (Oxford, 1983).Google Scholar

³ Doc. A/Conf.80/31 and A/Conf. 117/14. Neither convention has entered into force yet, and in light of the past experience their imporance seems very limited. However, the definition of state succession adopted in them is the most general and non-controversial, in comparison with doctrinal cases.

⁴ Hurst, C., “State Succession in Matters of Tort,” 5 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 163, 166–67 (1924).Google Scholar For the opposite view, see O’Connell, D. P., State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, Vol. 1, at 483 (Cambridge, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵ Quoted by Whiteman, M., 2 Digest of International Law 875 (Washington, 1963).Google Scholar

⁶ The Award of Nov. 23, 1923, 6 UNRIAA 120; [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 144; 2 Annual Digest (hereafter AD) (1923–24), No. 35.

⁷ The award of Nov. 10, 1925, 6 UNRIAA 157; [1962] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 144; 3 AD (1925–26), No. 59.

⁸ 12 UNRIAA 190.

⁹ Monnier, J., “La succession d’États en matière de responsabilité internationale,” Annuaire français de droit international, 1962, at 88.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Sumos (Liability for Torts) case, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 36.

¹¹ Sechter v. Ministry of Interior case, 5 AD (1929–30), No. 37.

¹² Functional Succession case, Bundesgerichtshof, July 9, 1953, in 20 ILR 79 (1953). Unterstützungsanstalt “Zur Humanität,” Freimauerloge zum Brunnen des Heils e., V. Heilbronn v. Land Baden-Württemberg, Supreme Restitutional Court, Feb. 27, 1958, in 26 ILR 89.

¹³ Personal Injuries (Upper Silesia) case, 18 ILR 67 (1951), No. 29.

¹⁴ Maeyens v. FRG, Mar. 13, 1959, in 28 ILR 571 (1963).

¹⁵ District Court of The Hague, Jan. 12, 1953, in 20 ILR 80 (1953).

¹⁶ Algiers Land and Warehouse Co. Ltd., Conseil d’État, July 13, 1967, in 48 ILR 58 (1975); Benejam case, Conseil d’État, Nov. 6, 1968, in 72 ILR 267 (1987); Agent judiciaire du Trésor v. Humbert, 74 ILR 97 (1987).

¹⁷ Railway Pension (Austria) case, 2 AD 1923–24, No. 34; [1983] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 142.

¹⁸ Rainoldi v. Ministro della Guerra, 13 ILR 8 (1946).

¹⁹ Olpinski v. Polish Treasury (Railway Division); 1 AD (1919–22), No. 36; Nierniec and Nierniec v. Bialobrodziec and (Polish) State Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 33; Dzierzbicki v. District Electric Association of Czestochowa, 7 AD (1933–34), No. 38.

²⁰ Baron A. v. Prussian Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 30.

²¹ Tanganyika Succession case, 1 AD(1919–22), No. 31; S. Th. v. German Treasury, 2 AD (1923–24), No. 29.

²² Kalmar v. Hungarian Treasury, 5 AD (1929–30), No. 36; [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 142.

²³ Mordcovici v. General Administration of Posts and Telegraphs, 2 AD (1929–30), No. 38; [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 143.

²⁴ Supra note 11.

²⁵ Kishangar Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. United State of Rajasthan, High Court of Rajasthan, May 5, 1959, in 49 ILR 365 (1976).

²⁶ 21 ILR 5 (1954).

²⁷ État Belge v. Dumont, Pittacos v. État Belge, May 26, 1966, in 48 ILR 8 (1975).

²⁸ [1963] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Pt. 2, at 282 and 287.

²⁹ [1968] ι Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 103 (F. Albonico), no (E. Ustor), and 127 (Α. Η. Tabibi).

³⁰ The problem of succession in respect of delictual responsibility was dealt with briefly during the 1421th Meeting of the ILC on May 17, 1977 ([1977] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 27). During discussion on the concept of a localized debt, M. Bedjaoui quoted delictual obligations as examples of this kind of debt; he rejected the transfer of such obligations because of the difficulties connected with attribution of the act.

³¹ [1979] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, Pt. 2, at 45.

³² Fourth Report on State Responsibility, by R. Ago, [1972] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, 130ff

³³ Cf. Marek, K., Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law 38–41 (Geneva, 1968),Google Scholar and recently Atlam, H., “National Liberation Movements and International Responsibility,” in Simma, B. and Spinedi, M. (eds.), UN Codification on State Responsibility 35 (New York/London/Rome, 1987).Google Scholar

³⁴ See the critical remarks by I. Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 2, at 178.

³⁵ Supra note 31, at 104.

³⁶ Udina, M., “La succession d’e’tats aux obligations internationales autres que les dettes publiques,” 44 RCADI 767 (1983);Google Scholar J. Monnier, supra note 9, at 86.

³⁷ Dinh, Nguyen Quoc, Daillier, P., Pellet, A., Droit international public 490 (Paris, 1987).Google Scholar

³⁸ C. Hurst, supra note 4 at 178; Brownlie, I., The Principles of Public International Law 644 (Oxford, 1973);Google Scholar Verdross, A./Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht 500 (Berlin, 1976);Google Scholar Wengler, W., Völkerrecht, Vol. 1, at 603–4 (Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg).Google Scholar

³⁹ Cavare, L., Le droit international positif, Vol. 1, at 416 (Paris, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rousseau, Ch., Droit international public, Vol. 3, at 505 (Paris, 1977).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Guggenheim, P., Traité de droit international public, Vol. 1, at 474 (Geneva, 1953);Google Scholar K. Marek, op. cit. supra note 33, at 10–11; Schwarzenberger, G., A Manual of International Law 88 (London, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴² Feilchenfeld, E. H., Public Debts and State Succession 690 (New York, 1931).Google Scholar

⁴³ D. P. O’Connell, op. cit. supra note 4, at 487; Oppenheim, F./Lauterpacht, H., International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1, at 162 (London, 1955);Google Scholar Henkin, L., Pugh, R., Schachter, O., Smit, H., International Law: Cases and Materials 783 (St. Paul, Minn., 1980).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ O’Connell, D. P., “Recent Problems of State Succession in Relation to New States,” 162–65 RCADI 130 (1970).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Verzijl, J. H. W., “Droit de la mer at la succession d’e’tats,” in Hommage d’une génération de juristes au Président Basdevant 523–25 (Paris, 1960).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ronzitti, N., La successione internazionale tra stati I 220–22 (Milano, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, (Third), Vol. 1, at 105 (St. Paul, Minn., 1987).

⁴⁸ Jennings, R. Y., “General Course of Principles of International Law,” 121 RCADI 602 (1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Judgment of Feb. 28, 1939, PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 76.

⁵⁰ A. Verdross/B. Simma, op. cit. supra note 38, at 501; J. Monnier, op. cit. supra note 9, at 70; P. Guggenheim, op. cit. supra note 41, at 474; R. Y. Jennings, op. cit. supra note 48, at 473; W. Wengler, op. cit. supra note 38, at 602.

⁵¹ 3 UNRIAA 1484.

⁵² O’Connell, D. P., “Independence and Problems of State Succession,” in O’Brien, W. (ed.), The New Nations in International Law and Diplomacy 31 (London, 1965);Google Scholar see also the Indian author, Hingorani, R. C., Modern International Law 98 (Dobbs Ferry, NY, 1979)Google Scholar (but referring to the R. Brown and Hawaiian Claims cases).

⁵³ See, e.g., Okoye, F., International Law and the New African States 178ff. (London, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ As to the position of the Austrian delegation during the Paris Peace Conference and the opinions expressed by H. Kelsen and A. Verdross, see K. Marek, op. cit. supra note 33, at 23. Compare also Cansacchi, G., “Identité et continuité des sujets internationaux,” 130 RCADI 34–35 (1970).Google Scholar It should be noted that the Four Powers considered the problem of transfer of responsibility for war to the successor states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia) in order to recover the costs of war but that finally the idea was rejected. The successor’s payments were treated as “costs of liberation,” not as reparations.