To set forth principles of behavior in formal documents is hardly to guarantee their observance. But they are reference points against which to judge actions and set goals.

The first of the series of documents is the Statement of Principles signed in Moscow in 1972. It affirms: (1) the necessity of avoiding confrontation; (2) the imperative of mutual restraint; (3) the rejection of attempts to exploit tensions to gain unilateral advantages; (4) the renunciation of claims of special influence in the world; and (5) the willingness, on this new basis, to coexist peacefully and build a firm long term relationship.

An Agreement for the Prevention of Nuclear War based on these principles was signed in 1973. It affirms that the objective of the policies of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. is to remove the danger of nuclear conflict and the use of nuclear weapons. But it emphasizes that this objective presupposes the renunciation of any war or threat of war not only by the two nuclear superpowers against each other, but also against allies or third countries. In other words, the principle of restraint is not confined to relations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., it is explicitly extended to include all countries.

These statements of principles are not an American concession; indeed we have been affirming them unilaterally for two decades. Nor are they a legal contract; rather they are an aspiration and a yardstick by which we assess Soviet behavior. We have never intended to "rely" on Soviet compliance with every principle; we do seek to elaborate standards of conduct which the Soviet Union would violate only to its cost. And if over the long term, the more durable relationship takes hold, the basic principles will give it definition, structure and hope.

Dept. of State Press Release, No. 366, Sept. 19, 1974, pp. 6-7; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXI, No. 1842, Oct. 14, 1974, pp. 509–510. The 1972 Basic Principles of Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union is at the Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXVI, No. 1722, June 26, 1972, pp. 898-899. The 1973 Agreement for the Prevention of Nuclear War is at TIAS 7654; 24 UST 1478 (entered into force June 22, 1973). See the 1973 Digest, Ch. 14, § 1, pp. 485-487.

Application

Succession of States in Respect of Treaties

On February 7, 1974, the United States transmitted to the United Nations Secretary-General its observations concerning the draft articles on succession of states in respect of treaties adopted by the International Law Commission on July 7, 1972, at its twenty-fourth session (GAOR: 27th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (A/8710/Rev. 1), pp. 9-87). Set forth below are the texts of the draft articles adopted by the Com

569-769-75- -16

mission and comments on certain articles thereof made by the United States:

PART I.

General Provisions

Article 1. Scope of the present articles

The present articles apply to the effects of succession of states in respect of treaties between states.

Article 2. Use of terms

1. For the purposes of the present articles:

(a) "treaty" means an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

(b) "succession of states" means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;

(c) "predecessor state" means the state which has been replaced by another state on the occurrence of a succession of states;

(d) "successor state" means the state which has replaced another state on the occurrence of a succession of states;

(e) "date of the succession of states" means the date upon which the successor state replaced the predecessor state in the responsibility for the international relations of the territory to which the succession of states relates;

(f) "newly independent state" means a state the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of state was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor state was responsible;

(g) "notification of succession" means in relation to a multilateral treaty any notification, however phrased or named, made by a successor state to the parties or, as the case may be, contracting states or to the depositary expressing its consent to be considered as bound by the treaty;

(h) "full powers" means in relation to a notification of succession a document emanating from the competent authority of a state designating a person or persons to represent the state for making the notification;

(i) "ratification", "acceptance" and "approval" mean in each case the international act so named whereby a state establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

(j) "reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a state when signing, ratifying, acccepting, approving or acceding to a treaty or when making a notification of succession to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state;

(k) "contracting state" means a state which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force;

(1) "party" means a state which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

(m) "other state party" means in relation to a succcessor state any party, other than the predecessor state, to a treaty in force at the date of a succession of states in respect of the territory to which that succession of states relates; (n) “international organization" means an intergovernmental organization.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present articles are without prejudice to the use of those terms or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of any state.

Article 3. Cases not within the scope of the present articles

The fact that the present articles do not apply to the effects of succession of states in respect of international agreements concluded between states and other subjects of international law or in respect of international agreements not in written form shall not affect:

(a) The application to such cases of any of the rules set forth in the present articles to which they would be subject under international law independently of these articles;

(b) The application as between states of the present articles to the effects of succession of states in respect of international agreements to which other subjects of international law are also parties.

Article 4. Treaties constituting international organizations and treaties

adopted within an international organization

The present articles apply to the effects of succession of states in respect of: (a) Any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization without prejudice to the rules concerning acquisition of membership and without prejudice to any other relevant rules of the organization;

(b) Any treaty adopted within an international organization without preju dice to any relevant rules of the organization.

Article 5. Obligations imposed by international law independently of a treaty The fact that a treaty is not in force in respect of a successor state as a result of the application of the present articles shall not in any way impair the duty of any state to fulfill any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it would be subject under international law independently of the treaty.

The Government of the United States considers that the articles on succession of states in respect of treaties proposed in first reading by the International Law Commission at its twenty-fourth session in 1972 constitute a sound basis for consideration of this difficult topic. The difficulties inherent in preserving a proper balance between the objectives of preserving continuity in international relationships on the one hand while on the other taking account of the necessities of an emergent state have, to a large extent, been met in the proposed articles. In commenting thereon, the United States will concentrate upon what it considers to be the major points of principle raised by the draft articles.

The decision of the Commission to maintain, particularly in part I (General Provisions) a substantial parallelism with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a sensible one. The unification of international law is promoted by the adoption of substantially identical texts to the greatest extent that varying subject-matter permits. This procedure is all the more desirable when, as in the present case, the project under consideration lies within the general field of the law of treaties. Accordingly, the United States supports articles 1 through 5 as proposed by the Commission.

Article 6. Cases of succession of states covered by the present articles

The present articles apply only to the effects of a succession of states occurring in conformity with international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

The purpose of article 6, to make clear that succession with regard to territory which does not take place in accordance with the requirements of international law should not be considered as the type of succession that is envisaged in the draft articles, is laudable. There is a question, however, whether the formulation of the article achieves the end sought. To the extent that the articles impose obligations upon successor states that are designed to promote the principles of the Charter of the United Nations there is no reason for excluding the imposition of such obligations upon any state that claims to be a successor state in respect of territory. Thus, the provision in article 29 that a succession shall not as such affect a boundary established by a treaty should apply in the case of any territorial change. Its applicability, in fact, may be more necessary in the case of a territorial change having elements of illegitimacy than in cases where there is no question as to the legality of the succession. It would be desirable to clarify article 6 to make it clear that the obligations in the draft articles apply in all cases. The article could be recast so as to provide that the rights conferred upon successors in the articles may be exercised only by states whose succession has taken place in conformity with international law. It would also seem advisable to revise the commentary. The position that the Commission drafts on the assumption that the rules it lays down would normally apply to facts occurring and situations established in conformity with international law appears too broad. The entire subject of state responsibility, for example, is concerned with rules applying to situations when there has been a breach of international law. In preparing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations the Commission was concerned with formulating the normal rules for diplomatic intercourse among states. But in preparing the draft on the Protection and Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents and Other Persons Entitled to Special Protection under International Law, the Commission was dealing with conduct in violation of the Vienna Diplomatic Conventions and other treaties and of basic principles of international law.

Article 7. Agreements for the devolution of treaty obligations or rights from a predecessor to a successor state

1. A predecessor state's obligations or rights under treaties in force in respect of a territory at the date of a succession of states do not become the obligations or rights of the successor state towards other states parties to those treaties in consequence only of the fact that the predecessor and successor states have concluded an agreement providing that such obligations or rights shall devolve upon the successor state.

2. Notwithstanding the conclusion of such an agreement, the effects of a succession of states on treaties which, at the date of that succession of states, were in force in respect of the territory in question are governed by the present articles.

Article 8. Successor state's unilateral declaration regarding its predecessor state's treaties

1. A predecessor state's obligations or rights under treaties in force in respect of a territory at the date of a succession of states do not become the obligations or rights of the successor state or of other states parties to those treaties in consequence only of the fact that the successor state has made a unilateral declaration providing for the continuance in force of the treaties in respect of its territory.

2. In such a case the effects of the succession of states on treaties which at the date of that succession of states were in force in respect of the territory in question are governed by the present articles.

Articles 7 and 8 might be clarified in each case by combining paragraphs 1 and 2 into a single paragraph which would say, in effect, that notwithstanding the conclusion of a devolution agreement, or a unilateral declaration by the successor state regarding continuance in force of treaties, the present articles govern the effects of the succession with respect to treaties in force in the territory on the date of succession. As presently drafted article 7 leaves some doubts as to its relationship to articles 35, 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and article 8 raises some questions as to the law of unilateral acts. Examination of the commentaries to these articles, such as paragraphs (15) to (17) of the commentary to article 7, and paragraphs (16) and (17) of the commentary to article 8, establishes the desirability of eliminating doubt on these points.

Article 9. Treaties providing for the participation of a successor state

1. When a treaty provides that, on the occurrence of a succession of states, a successor state shall have the option to consider itself a party thereto, it may notify its succession in respect of the treaty in conformity with the provisions of the treaty or, failing any such provisions, in conformity with the provisions of the present articles.

2. If a treaty provides that, on the occurrence of a succession of states, the successor state shall be considered as a party, such a provision takes effect only if the successor state expressly accepts in writing to be so considered.

3. In cases falling under paragraphs 1 or 2, a successor state which establishes its consent to be a party to the treaty is considered as a party from the date of the succession unless the treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed.

PART II

Transfer of Territory

Article 10. Transfer of territory

When territory under the sovereignty or administration of a state becomes part of another state:

(a) Treaties of the predecessor state cease to be in force in respect of that territory from the the date of the succession; and

(b) Treaties of the successor state are in force in respect of that territory from the same date, unless it appears from the particular treaty or is otherwise estab