unique problems raised by the reunification of the Germanies’ to the tortuous ‘three difficulties arising from the successions to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, desovietization raised a host of problems (many of them unwelcome) for politicians and civil servants to tackle. Unlike decolonization, which had been somewhat planned (at least, in broad strokes) from the mid-forties, desovietization was a spontaneous juggernaut. Policy had to be made on the hop largely by the First World in the ensuing power vacuum. In the – frenzy, what eventuated was the devising of solutions to the problems at hand and the ad hoc renewed debate in the professional literature on the basics and specifics of succession. Cry Havoc: Confused State Practice In light of the largely unexpected and unplanned collapse of the Second World, the ILC’s decision to expedite its succession projects in the midst of decolonization may have been regarded as fortuitous, if not prescient. The availability of expertly-drafted codices as swords for a slew of Gordian knots might be welcomed by the diplomats and jurists whose unenviable task it was to cut them. Yet, the record features poor participation, indecisive normativity and infrequent application in practice. For example, the solution adopted for German reunification most importantly, the – question of German membership in the European Community of an absorption of the – German Democratic Republic by the Federal Republic of Germany as an essentially ‘internal’ process did not accord with either Article 31 VCSST or with the approach taken to the unification of Yemen later that year. The Baltic States’ policy of rejecting the Soviet legacy in favour of a of prior personality’ theory had no basis in the Vienna Conventions ‘revival and led to inconsistent outcomes on a variety of matters. Although Czechoslovakia was comparatively straightforward and the influence of Article 34 of the VCSST was discernible the lack of consistency in the body of practice was evident: in the Gabćikovo-Nagymaros
unique problems raised by the reunification of the ‘three Germanies’ to the tortuous difficulties arising from the successions to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, desovietization raised a host of problems (many of them unwelcome) for politicians and civil servants to tackle. Unlike decolonization, which had been somewhat planned (at least, in broad strokes) from the mid-forties, desovietization was a spontaneous juggernaut. Policy had to be made on the hop – largely by the First World in the ensuing power vacuum. In the frenzy, what eventuated was the devising of ad hoc solutions to the problems at hand and the renewed debate in the professional literature on the basics and specifics of succession. Cry Havoc: Confused State Practice In light of the largely unexpected and unplanned collapse of the Second World, the ILC’s decision to expedite its succession projects in the midst of decolonization may have been regarded as fortuitous, if not prescient. The availability of expertly-drafted codices as swords for a slew of Gordian knots might be welcomed by the diplomats and jurists whose unenviable task it was to cut them. Yet, the record features poor participation, indecisive normativity and infrequent application in practice. For example, the solution adopted for German reunification – most importantly, the question of German membership in the European Community – of an absorption of the German Democratic Republic by the Federal Republic of Germany as an essentially ‘internal’ process did not accord with either Article 31 VCSST or with the approach taken to the unification of Yemen later that year. The Baltic States’ policy of rejecting the Soviet legacy in favour of a ‘revival of prior personality’ theory had no basis in the Vienna Conventions and led to inconsistent outcomes on a variety of matters. Although Czechoslovakia was comparatively straightforward and the influence of Article 34 of the VCSST was discernible the lack of consistency in the body of practice was evident: in the Gabćikovo-Nagymaros
EJIL%20Submission%20-%20Codifying%20the%20Law%20of%20State%20Succession%20-%20Main%20Document%20with%20Title%20Page.docx