Mohamad Setayeshpur; Mostafa Fazaeli
Abstract
Succession of states to international responsibility has been considered as one of the most controversial issues in international law, must be scrutinized regardless of the way the related succession has been occurred. Being controversial, united nations international law commission (ILC), as the scientific ...
Read More
Succession of states to international responsibility has been considered as one of the most controversial issues in international law, must be scrutinized regardless of the way the related succession has been occurred. Being controversial, united nations international law commission (ILC), as the scientific institution of codification and progressive development of international law, has also repeatedly refused to deal with the issue in question. While United States of America and Great Britain Arbitral Commission (US-Britain Arbitral Commission) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), as two legal bodies for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, via their decisions and the arguments advanced, clarified the above mentioned conception, which re-affirms the role of international tribunals in the progressive development of international law, beside their main function, i.e. the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Scutinizing the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, clearly, indicates the conceptual evolution of the succession of states in respect of international responsibility. None-succession of state to international responsibility, which explicity was considered as a principle in two arbitral awards of US-Britain arbitral commission, has gone down in the ICJ, gradually. The present paper, through the comparative study of the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, addresses the conceptual evolution of the state succession to international responsibility and its scope as the international legal conception.
