Talk:Succession of states/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Although the succession of states theory can be criticized for being undemocratic, it has not been obliviated (at least in practice) by the self-determination clause of the United Nations charter.

Succession of states theory in sports?

Is the Succession of states theory used in sports? Example: Are all the prices won by the USSR today in the headquarters of Russian sports federations (I mean the cups, the players have the medals).

Disputed: Contradiction in content

Succession of states has no real evidence besides in the field of international recognition and properties that require the consent of others. There is nothing here that supports a lot of what is said in the top half of the article. Where are the references? The only thing here is participation of international organizations and recognition by other countries (such as is explicitly stated by the Vienna Treaty). The first part appears to be... well... bullshit.

So-called undiscussed edits

I made my edits piecemeal and with several comments in addition to pointing out above that the article's information was contradictory as well as unsourced. It is in general disagreement with what is found in the top matches according to Google. Jiang has a very particular POV view regarding Chinese/Taiwanese politics that my clarifications here may upset. His motivations for reverting me--I urge my fellow wikipedians to decide.

Page Move

I'd do it, but apparently I'm too new. See the following sets of results from Google [1] (over 10,000 hits) versus [2] (over 1,000 hits, top hits are wikipedia and wikipedia "syndicators").Moveapage 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to do it, and the Google stats aren't terribly convincing to me. Why do you think this would be beneficial? CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Three articles (Succession of states, Successor state, and Predecessor state) have been marked for merger for a very long time, but have had no discussion. I hereby propose to do it. The result would be more complete and better understood. More like an encyclopedia, less like a dictionary. Any comments? Hult041956 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (corrected a misspelling my own previous comment Hult041956 23:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC) )

I placed the tags for merge initially, and of course I still support it. I regret, however, that I missed the opportunity to raise this on the talk page before. I think that in a complete article, we will be able to cover the "succession of states" under the three different fields where the concept is commonly invoked (1) international law (who gets the UN seat?), (2) historiography (which ancient civilization influenced this later civilization?) and (3) romantic nationalism (we consider our newly independent nation as a revival of our ancestors' glorious history)--Pharos 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the merge today. Essentially I cut & pasted everything from "Successor state" and "Predecessor state" into this article. I did a some blending in, a bit of copy editing, and deleted some redundancy, but not much else. I have hardly achieved anything like the article you suggest. Perhaps at least, we now have a single foundation for that article to be built upon. Hult041956 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More info?

I'd like to find more info on this subject. Does anyone have any suggested reading? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.211.110 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second this comment, specifically with regard to the State of Israel and State of Palestine (or occupied/disputed territories if that terminology is more to your taste).Spencerkberry (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Germany's case

I remember East Germany never quite believed it to be a successor state to the Third Reich. It regarded itself as a completely new "workers and farmers state" that is of German culture. West Germany did consider itself the latest successor government of the German nation. --JNZ (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PRC's succession of the ROC

I think it is still a contentious assertion that PRC has indeed succeeded the ROC. Given that and Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I think we should point that out instead of just treating it as a conclusive matter. --Pyl (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but think there should be much more discussion, such as whether the PRC succeeded the ROC in mainland China only (as is a common international opinion) or mainland China AND Taiwan (as

is recognized by the vast majority of international experts).Spencerkberry (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

United States becomes United States?

I don't think that a country that has simply altered it's constitution, yet kept it's name, should be regarded as a successor state to itself. The United States has never been a succeeded state, and if it was, it was when British, French, Spanish colonies, and Iroquois and other native nations amalgamated/absorbed into what was the United States. The Articles of Confederation altered the relationship between the states, but the country itself did not accede, or change it's status, because of it. Another possible scenario is the Civil War, when the CSA formed and then repatrioted the union. Or perhaps the gradual replacement over the past half century of the USA by the American Empire? Any of these are more reasonable successor state periods than the Articles of Confederation. That was just legal mumbo-jumbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisplacedFate1313 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps there should be some discussion as to the argument (despite its unpersuasive nature) that the US under the AoC was not a sovereign state, but a collection of 13 sovereign states with a semi-plenary confederate government uniting them, and that the US (under the current constitution) succeeded the 13 states. It may possibly be fringe, but it's worth looking in to. Also, what do you mean by American Empire? While the US may have taken a more bellicose and imperialistic position on foreign policy, I don't think that qualifies as a succession, mainly due to the lack of a precise date upon which the succession occurred (which is why the UK is generally not considered a successor state to the British Empire, nor the British Empire a successor state to pre-imperial Great Britain).Spencerkberry (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Scotland, Ireland and Wales

I know the list of examples is only a list of examples but I notice only England is mentinoed as a predecessor state of the UK what about the other nations/countries/constiuent countries of the "British Isles" especially as The modern Republic of Ireland is a sucessor of Eire a successor of the Irish Free State a successor of Great Britain and Ireland etc. Penrithguy (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if there are any examples of states which have voluntarily given up their sovereignty, or entered into a binding union with another state and later resuming it? Is there for instance a point at which it is no longer possible to undo the a free union, or is time not a factor?

There most be examples, but the one that springs to mind currently is the case of Scotland. I doubt anyone would disagree that Scotland was sovereign before 1707, and even after that date it had aspects of sovereignty like its own system of law, courts, education and church which were constitutionally protected from change. Is that residual sovereignty? Does the current referendum on Scottish Independence constitute an expression of the free will of the Scottish people to resume that sovereignty in full or is it an act of secession as some now claim? That said even at the time the union was not necessarily act of popular democratic choice, far from it. The parties to union were two equally sovereign states, surely then if the Act is abrogated the Union no longer exists and the original parties resume their separate status, ie Scotland and England (including N Ireland?). By what principle of international law does one party claim that the Act of Union of 1707 continues for them even though the original purpose of it is defunct?

Several of the current European states have had enforced periods of subjection to other states (Poland, Baltic States, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc) yet were welcomed back into the community of nation states. Why should it be so odd that a nation state that voluntarily merged with another state, could resume its sovereignty? Freedom1968 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Examples of succession

This list should be deleted. It is an example farm and does not serve any purpose. Better to have a small list in paragraph form that list pertinent points about successor states, and which have citations to back them up. For example how Russia finally paid off the outstanding debts of the Russian Empire, which for political reasons the Soviets had refused to do.

"Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, Russia was internationally recognised[15] to be the legal successor to the Soviet state on the international stage. To that end, Russia voluntarily accepted all Soviet foreign debt, and claimed overseas Soviet properties as its own. To prevent subsequent disputes over Soviet property, "zero variant" agreements were proposed to ratify with newly independent states the status quo on the date of dissolution. (Ukraine is the last former Soviet republic not to have entered into such an agreement.) The end of the Soviet Union also raised questions about treaties it had signed, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; Russia has held the position that those treaties remain in force, and should be read as though Russia were the signatory." (Soviet Union#Foreign relations)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is three years later, but it may be worth mentioning that modern-day Germany only finished paying off the war debt it held from the Treaty of Versailles last year (2010), albeit at a reduced amount. That shows a debt that is being carried through several different incarnations of a state (five independent ones, if we're counting). Significant enough to use as an example? --87.254.64.49 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

West Germany

Officially and at popular level, in Germany itself today's Germany is regarded as the continuation of pre-reunification West Germany rather than a successor state (for examples of popular-level German perception, in 1999 Konemann published a pictorial popular history book named 50 Years of the Germany). I believe many foreign countries do not recognize this claim and consider West Germany as entirely different entities. Does anyone have information pertaining to this? --JNZ (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

From memory, the Federal Republic of Germany didn't legally unite with the Democratic Republic. Rather the Eastern lander were formally admitted to the Federal Republic one by one. Apparently there were some legal advantages doing so. --Error (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. The Federal Republic of Germany absorbed the states of East Germany into itself and East Germany ceased to exist, thus making West Germany the only Germany from then on. This was in full legal accordance with a section of the F.R. Germany constitution which allowed "German" Länder to join the Federal Republic like this. The same section had been used once before, when Saarland was admitted to the Federal Republic. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

India

Are both (the Republic of) India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) successor states of the British Raj? Or neither? 119.237.249.129 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.2.56 (talk)

Spanish wrecks

Is it under this doctrine that today's Spain is recognized as the owner of shipwrecks of the Spanish Empire containing treasure from Spanish America? Do former Spanish colonies claim succession to the Spanish Empire? --Error (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Medals for Russia and Soviet Union

Should Russia and the Soviet Union be counted as one in sport medal tables? Please give your thought at Talk:Bandy World Championship for men#Medals for Russia and Soviet Union! Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible POV re Israel and possible opportunity for inclusion of valuable information

The sub-section regarding Israel seems to be a bit POV, mainly due to the fact that does not address the issue of the Palestinian territories, much less include a sub-section regarding the State of Palestine, and its successors (also, its reference to Israel's "clean slate," perhaps I'm missing something, but Israel's militant predecessors, including Haganah, Irgun and the Stern-Gang, (allegedly) committed acts of terrorism against civilians, including British as well as Arab civilians, so Israel is certainly without a "clean slate"). I'm not an expert programmer (or even a reasonably good one) and am surely not as well versed in Wikipedia policy to make a change to the page, hence my coming to the talk page to discuss this.Spencerkberry (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, with regard to state succession, it is my understanding that there is a valid argument that Israel's existence (via the Balfour Declaration and its incorporation into the Mandate for Palestine at the San Remo Conference) is contrary to customary international law (and possibly violates the peremptory norm of self-determination by denying that right to the indigenous population of Palestine as it existed at that time) as sovereignty (over a non-empty territory that was controlled by a sovereign power, in this case the Ottoman Empire), when lost via destruction of the previous sovereign power, is transferred to the indigenous population, consistent with the principle of self-determination. This sovereignty isn't immediately vested but held in trust by an administrator (in this case, Great Britain) until such time as the indigenous population is capable of self-governance, when it is then transferred to to that self-governing entity representing the indigenous population (in this case, the Palestian Arab majority, as well as the Jewish, Bedouin, Druze, etc. minorities). By ear-marking the territory for an NGO, like the Jewish Agency, to create a state and exert sovereignty over it, to the detriment of the indigenous population as a whole, is an ultra vires (beyond the legal power) act by Great Britain, and that the League of Nations approved of the act doesn't make it legal according to international law regarding state succession (as the League of Nations and its successor, the UN, does not create international law, but merely adjudicates and enforces it (among other things). If a Wikipedian with a better understanding of international law can correct me, I invite him to do so. Also, I pose this question to the other Wikipedians: should a discussion about relevant international law, and its application to Palestine vis-a-vis the Israel-Palestine conflict and questions of state legitimacy be included in this article, a different, existing article, a brand new article, or abandoned altogether? (In case you were wondering, my visit to this page, and this comment on the talk page, grew out of my interest in international law, but I regrettably found this article inadequate, and no other articles adequate, with respect to this issue). Please point out any deficiencies in the above paragraph if you are knowledgeable about this issue and/or international law. Thank you.Spencerkberry (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Move proposal

I propose this page be moved to "Successor state." Because it is more concrete than "Succession of states." It would contain the same subject matter still. ImTheIP (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw, you can see from the history of the article that I have axed some content. Most of it were unsourced. If someone feels it provides value in the article, feel free to "rescue" it. ImTheIP (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Succession of states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181700/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol7/No4/art1-05.html to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol7/No4/art1-05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Distribution of state debt

I have a vague recollection of hearing that there is a standard formula for allocating debt if a state breaks apart - and which was applied in the case of Yugoslavia - but I've no idea if that is true. Anyone know? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)