We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
This article considers the way in which territorial modifications andbreakups in federal states are dealt with in domestic and ininternational law. It investigates whether federal states permitseparatist claims of their minorities for “internal modifications”on the basis of constitutional Law, such as the formation of newmember units or the merger of existing member units, and whetherdomestic law knows of any secessionist claims for “externalmodifications,” such as the formation of new sovereign states or themerger or association with existing states. The extensive practicesurveyed by the author allows for a new outlook on the well-knownproblem of “self-determination.”
Cet article examine comment le droit interne et le droitinternational traitent des questions de modifications territorialeset de démembrement des États fédéraux. L’auteur cherche à savoir siles États fédéraux autorisent les demandes séparatistes de leursminorités qui réclament, sur la base du droit constitutionnel, des“modifications internes” telles que la formation de nouvellesentités ou la fusion d’entités existantes. Il vérifie en outre si ledroit interne prévoit la présentation de demandes sécessionnistesportant sur des “modifications externes” telles que la formation denouveaux États souverains, la fusion ou l’association d’Étatsexistants. La pratique analysée par l’auteur donne un nouvel aperçudu problème bien connu de l’autodétermination.
University of Basle, Judge of the European Court of Human Rights.This text is an updated version of an article entitled“Bestandesänderungén in Bundesstaaten,” which appeared in “Rechtzwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung,” Festschrift RudolphBernhardt 905-33 (1995).
1 See generally Brossard, J., L’accession à la souveraineté et le cas du Québec (1976)Google Scholar; Fetscherin, W., Änderungen im Bestand der Gliedstaaten in Bundesstaaten der Gegenwart (thesis) (Zurich, 1973).Google Scholar
2 See Beigbeder, Y., International Monitoring of Plebiscites, Referenda and National Elections (1994)Google Scholar; Brôlmann, C., Lefeber, R., and Zieck, M. (eds), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (1993)Google Scholar; Brühl-Moser, D., Die Entwicklung des Selbstbestimmungsrechts der Völker unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seines innerstaatlich-demokratischen Aspekts und seiner Bedeutungfür den Minderheitenschuti (thesis) (Basel, 1994)Google Scholar; Buchanan, A., Secession (1991)Google Scholar; Cassese, A., Self-determination of Peoples (1995)Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., The Protection of Minorities and Human Rights (1992)Google Scholar; Ermacora, F., Tretter, H., and Pelzl, A. (eds), Volksgruppen im Spannungsfeld von Recht und Souverânitât in MittelAind Osteuropa (1993)Google Scholar; Franck, T.M., Higgins, R., Pellet, A., Shaw, M.N., and Tomuschat, C., “L’intégrité territoriale du Québec dans l’hypothèse de l’accession à la souveraineté,” in Commission d’études des questions afférentes à l’accession du Québec à la souveraineté, Exposés et études Vol. 1 371–461 (1992)Google Scholar; Frowein, J.A., Hofmann, R., and Oeter, S. (eds), Dos Minderheitenrecht europâischer Staaten (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannum, H., Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights (1990)Google Scholar; Heintze, H.J., Selbstbestimmungsrecht und Minderheitenrechte im Völkerrecht (19941)Google Scholar; Müllerson, R., International Law, Rights and Politics (1994)Google Scholar; Peters, A., Das Gebietsreferendum im Volkerrecht, (thesis) (Freiburg i. Br., 1994)Google Scholar; Shehadi, K.L., Ethnic Self-determination and the Break-up of States (1993)Google Scholar; Thornberry, P., International Law and the Rights of Minorities (1991)Google Scholar; Tomuschat, C. (ed.), Modern Law of Self-Determination (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Craven, G., “Of Federalism, Secession, Canada and Quebec” (1991) 14 Dal. L. J. 231–65.Google Scholar See also infra notes 96–101.
4 See infra notes 96–99, 106.
5 34 & 35 Victoria, c. 28. For the following developments, see Fetscherin, supra note 1 at 92–97, 108–12, 123–35.
6 The following states were formed: Ohio 1803, Indiana 1816, Mississippi 1817, Illinois 1818, Alabama 1819, Michigan 1837, and Wisconsin 1848.
7 The following states were formed: Louisiana 1812, Missouri 1821, Arkansas 1836, Iowa 1846, Minnesota 1858, South Dakota 1859, Kansas 1861, Nebraska 1867, North Dakota 1889, Montana 1889, Wyoming 1890, Oklahoma 1907.
8 They consisted of: Oregon 1859, Washington 1889, Idaho 1890.
9 The following states were formed: Nevada 1864, Colorado 1867, Utah 1896, Arizona 1912, New Mexico 1912.
10 Manitoba 1870, Saskatchewan and Alberta 1905.
11 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE) 13, 54 (73–74) {Hessen case, 1961).
12 Der Kampf um den Südweststaat. Verhandlungen und Beschlüsse der gesetzge-benden Kôrperschaften des Bundes und des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes, Vol. I (1952); BVerfGE I, 14 (1951); Fetscherin, supra note 1 at 81–88, 152–73.
13 This was preceded by the Staatsvertrag, Wahlvertrag and Einigungsvertrag of May 18, Aug. 3 and Aug. 31, 1990, between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. See also BVerfGE 82, 316 (1990).
14 The legislators agreed with the majorities required to modify the constitution under Art. 79, para. 2 of the Basic Law.
15 As to the following, see Das Basu, D., Constitutional Law of India, 4th ed., 4–5, 394–985 (1985)Google Scholar; Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 4th ed., 256–58 (1987)Google Scholar; Pylee, M.V., Constitutional Government in India, 4th ed. 74–89 (1984)Google Scholar; Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India, 3rd ed., Vol 1,15, 173–83 (1983)Google Scholar; Shetty, K.P. Krishna, The Law of Union-State Relations and Indian Federalism 22–46 (1981)Google Scholar; Singh, D.K. (ed.), V. N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, 7th ed., 3–8, 672–76 (1982).Google Scholar
16 Andra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Bombay (split up in 1960), Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore (called Karnataka since 1973), Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal.
17 Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands.
18 As to the linguistic situation, see Krishna Shetty, K.P., The Law of Union-State Relations and Indian Federalism 398–441 (1981)Google Scholar; as to general minority problems, see Harada, H. and Mohaptra, S., Centre-State Relations in India 200–51 (1986)Google Scholar; as to Punjab, see Hannum, supra note 2 at 151–77; as to Nagaland, L., see Buchheit, C., Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination 189–98 (1978)Google Scholar; as to Assam, see Wilson, J.S., “Turmoil in Assam” (1992) 15 Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Arunachal Pradesh (1987), Manipur (1971), Meghalaya (1971), Mizoram (1987), Nagaland (1962), Sikkim (1975), Tripura (1971).
20 Andra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh (member state since 1987), Assam, Bihar, Goa (1987), Gujarat (1960), Haryana (1966), Himachal Pradesh (1970), Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madya Pradesh, Maharashtra (1960), Manipur (1971), Meghalaya (1971), Mizoram (1987), Nagaland (1962), Orissa, Punjab (1966), Rajasthan, Sikkim (1975), Tamil Nadu, Tripura (1971), Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal.
21 Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh (territory since 1966), Dadra and Nagar Haveli (1961), Daman and Diu (1961), Delhi, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry (1962).
22 For instance, Telengana from Andra Pradesh, Vidarbha from Maharashtra, Uttarkhand from Uttar Pradesh, Gurkhaland from West Bengal, Bodoland from Assam, as well as Iharkhand from Bihar, Madya Pradesh, and Orissa. Movements of secession existed or still exist primarily in Nagaland, Punjab, as well as in Jammu and Kashmir.
23 In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, [1960] A.I.R.(S.C.) 845, 857, (1960) 3 S.C.R. 250, 285; State of West Bengal v. Union of India, [1963] A.I.R. (S.C.) 1241, 1252. According to Sri Kishan v. State, [ 1957] A.I.R. (A.P.) 374, a guarantee for the continued existence of member states that existed at the time of independence is missing. Cessions of territory to other sovereign states require a constitutional basis, according to Maganthai v. Union of India, [1969] A.I.R. (S.C.) 783, (1969) 3 S.C.R. 254, 283 (per Hidayatullah, C.J., from whom Shah, J., differs at 299), which in turn invokes In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, supra.
24 Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, [1960] A.I.R. (S.C.) 51, (1960) 1 S.C.R. 605.
25 As to the following, see Pfirter, D., Bundesstaat Brasilien (thesis) 279–314 (Basel, 1990).Google Scholar
26 Ibid., 314-55.
27 See note 31 infra.
28 Fetscherin, supra note l at 92–97, 175; Loewenstein, K., Verfassungsrecht und Verfassungspraxis der Vereinigten Staaten 46–47, 90–101 (1959).Google Scholar
29 On that issue, see Lumb, R.D. and Ryan, K.W., The Constitution of the Common-loealth ofAustralia Annotated, 3rd ed., 395–97 (1981)Google Scholar; Quick, J. and Garran, R.R., The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth 974–77 (1901, reprint 1976).Google Scholar
30 Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada, 2nd ed., 62–63 (1985).Google Scholar
31 Compare the messages of the Federal Council in Bundesblatt der schweizer-ischen Eidgenossenschaft (BB1) 1970 I 549–56, 1977 II 264–324, 1977 III 767–818; Aubert, J.-F., Commentary of the Federal Constitution, Art. 1 Nrs. 51–106 (1986)Google Scholar; Roller, H., “Gebietsânderungen im Bundesstaat: Ansichten und Aussichten nach dem Laufental-Entscheid” in Festschrift Alfred Rötheli 173–91 (1990)Google Scholar; Pfirter, D., “Bundesrechtliche Vorschriften fur einen Kantonswechsel einzelner Gemeinden” Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 108 at 539–64 (1989)Google Scholar; Wildhaber, L., “Ederswiler und Vellerat — zur Gebietsverànderung im Bundesstaat” in Festschrift Hans Huber 343–49 (1981).Google Scholar
32 With 90,358 (86.5 per cent) Yes to 14,133 (13.5 per cent) No. The seven jurassic districts voted 20,421 (90 per cent) Yes to 2,259 (10 per cent) No.
33 The three northern districts, Porrentruy, Delémont, and Franches-Montagnes accepted; the three southern districts, La Neuveville, Courtelary, and Moutier, as well as the Valley of Laufen, rejected.
34 Courtelary with 10,802 (77 per cent) Yes to 3,268 (23 per cent) No; Moutier 9,947 (56.2 per cent) Yes to 7,740 (43.8 per cent) No; La Neuveville 1,927 (66 per cent) Yes to 997 (34 per cent) No.
35 The communities Châtillon, Corban, Courchapoix, Courrendlin, Les Genevez, Lajoux, Mervelier, Rossemaison.
36 The communities Grandval, Moutier, Perrefite, La Scheulte.
37 The communities Rebévilier and Roggenburg.
38 With 1,309,722 (82.3 per cent) Yes to 281,917 (17.7 per cent) No.
39 With 4,216 (94 per cent) Yes to 264 (6 per cent) No.
40 With 4,164 (65 per cent) Yes to 2,234 (35 Per cent) No.
41 3,176 (52 per cent) voted for Basel-Country, 1099 (32 per cent) for Solo-thum, g83 (16 per cent) for Basel-Town.
42 4,233 (65 per cent) voted for Basel-Country, 2,315 (35 per cent) for Solothurn.
43 With 4,675 (56.7 per cent) No to 3,575 (43.3 per cent) Yes.
44 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichts (BGE) 114 la 427. Compare also BGE 113 la 155.
45 With 4,652 (51.7 per cent) Yes to 4,343 (48.3 per cent) No.
46 With 1,188,941 (75.2 per cent) Yes to 392,893 (24.8 per cent) No.
47 Supra at notes 33–37.
48 210,680 (84.3 per cent) Yes to 39,168 (15.7 per cent) No.
49 20,020 (92 per cent) Yes to 1,758 (8 per cent) No.
50 1,250,728 (91.6 per cent) Yes to 114,105 (8.4 per cent) No. All 26 Cantons said Yes.
51 BB1 1995 III 1432 at 1437–39.
52 Fetscherin, supra note l at 192–214.
53 See Bonjour, E., Geschichte der sckweizerischen Neutralität, vol. 2, 2nd ed., 718–40 (1965)Google Scholar; Witzig, D., Die VorarlbergerFrage, (thesis) (Basle, 1974).Google Scholar
54 Walter, R. and Mayer, H., Grundriss des österreichischen Bundesverfassungsrechts, 7th ed., 77 (1992).Google Scholar
55 Kunth, B., Der Abschluss völkerrechtlicher Verträge über Änderungen des Bundesgebiets, (thesis) (Heidelberg, 1971).Google Scholar
56 See Craven, G., “The Constitutionality of the Unilateral Secession of an Australian State” (1985) 15 Fed. L. Rev. 123Google Scholar and “An Indissoluble Federal Commonwealth? The Founding Fathers and the Secession of an Australian State” (1983) 14 Melb. U. L. Rev. 281–99.
57 Cf. In re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, Special Reference, supra note 23 at 845; Ram Kishore v. Union of India, [1966] All India Rep. 644 (S.C);Setalvad, M.C., Union and State Relations under the Indian Constitution 28–29 (1974)Google Scholar; D. K. Singh (ed.), supra note 15 at 5–8.
58 Cf. Haberle, P., “Das Staatsgebiet als Problem der Verfassungslehre,” in “Kleinstaat und Menschenrechte,” Festschrift Gerard Batliner 397 at 404–5 (1993).Google Scholar
59 Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. 645,725. See also Brossard, supra note 1 at 105–12, 197–202, 281–87, 304–10, 395–406, 712–19; Crawford, J., The Creation of States in International Law 247–70 (1979).Google Scholar
60 Loewenstein, K., “Verfassungsrccht und Verfassungsrealitât” in Beiträge zur Staatssoziologie 430 at 447–48 (1961).Google Scholar
61 Beloff, Max (ed.). The Federalist, nos. 39, 42 at 195–96, 216 (1948)Google Scholar; de Tocqueville, A., De la démocratie en Amérique 168–69, 225, 232–33, 236–40 (1951)Google Scholar; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dal1. (2 U.S.) 419, 435 (1793).
62 Calhoun, J.C., “Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States” in Galé, R.K. (ed.), Works 1888, vol. I, 111–406 at 146.Google Scholar See also Curtis, G. Ticknor, Constitutional History of the United States, vol. 2, 1–55 (1896)Google Scholar; Kelly, A.H. and Harbison, W.A., The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 3rd ed. 300–16 (1963)Google Scholar; Thorpe Newton, F., The Constitutional History of the United States 1765–1895, vol. 2, 345–48, 387–440 (1901)Google Scholar; and see generally Wildhaber, L., “Sovereignty and International Law” in Macdonald, R.St.J. and Johnston, D.M. (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law 432–35 (1983).Google Scholar
63 Thorpe, supra note 61 at 407.
64 Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 227, 237 (1868); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879); Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936); New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572, 594–95 (1946); Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1958).
65 U.K., House of Commons Parliamentary Debates, vol. 192, col. 1658–96 (June 16, 1868); Brossard, supra note 1 at 275–77, 285; Cook, R., Provincial Autonomy, Minority Rights and the Compact Theory, 1867–1921 10–11 (Studies of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1969)Google Scholar; Maxwell, J.A., “Petitions to London by Provincial Governments” (1936) 14 Can. Bar Rev. 738–49.Google Scholar
66 Ibid., col. 1683.
67 In Tyrol 145,300 to 1,800 votes, in Salzburg 98,550 to 880.
68 Altenstetter, C., Der Föderalismus in Osterreich 12–13 (1969)Google Scholar; Ermacora, F., Öster-rechischer Föderalismus 40–47 (1976)Google Scholar; Goldinger, W., Geschichteder Republik Österreich 67–76 (1962).Google Scholar
69 Report by theJoint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons Appointed to Consider the Petition of the State of Western Australia in Relation to Secession, H. L. 75, H. C. 88, para. 7, p. viii (1935); Brossard, supra note 1 at 280–85; Davis, S.R. (ed.), The Government of the Australian States 474–76 (1960)Google Scholar; Russell, E., “Western Australian Secession Petition — Arguments Before the Joint Select Committee” (1935) 9 Aust. L.J. 141–43Google Scholar; Theoret, R., “Experience with the Referendum Elsewhere” in Rowat, D.C. (ed.), The Referendum and Separation Elsewhere: Implications for Quebec 10–12 (1978).Google Scholar The outcome of the vote was 138,653Yes to 70,706 No.
70 Hopkins, E.R., Confederation at the Crossroads: The Canadian Constitution 262–265 (1968)Google Scholar; Mayo, H.B., “Newfoundland’s Entry into the Dominion” (1949) 15 Can. J. Ec. & Pol. Sci. 505–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noel, S.J.R., Politics in Newfoundland 255–61 (1971)Google Scholar; Theoret, R., “The Use of the Referendum in Canada” in Rowat, D.C. (ed.), The Referendum and Separation Elsewhere: Implications for Quebec 26–29 (1978).Google Scholar The referendum procedure was attacked as unconstitutional in the Newfoundland courts, but without success, in Currie v. MacDonald (1948) 29 Nfld. & P. E. I. R. 314 (Nfld. S.C), (1949) 29 Nfld. & P. E. I. R. 294 (Nfld. CA.).
71 See McWhinney, E., Quebec and the Constitution 1960–1978 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Canada and the Constitution (1982);Morin, J.-Y. and Woehrling, J., Les Constitutions du Canada et du Québec du régime français à nos jours (1992)Google Scholar; Woehrling, J., La Constitution canadienne et l’évolution des rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais, de 1867 à nos jours (University of Alberta, Centre for Constitutional Studies, 1993).Google Scholar
72 At that time, 82 per cent of all Franco-Canadians lived in the province of Québec and 80 per cent of the population of Québec spoke French. Québec’s total population made up 28 per cent of the population of Canada.
73 See Byers, R.B., “The Referendum: Yes or No,” [1980] Can. Ann. Rev. of Politics and Public Affairs 38–58.Google Scholar
74 In favour of such a right, Brossard supra note 1 at 82–89, 188–90, 304–7; Turp, D., “Le droit de sécession en droit international public” 20 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 24–78 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and recendy, in a very circumspect way, Woehrling supra note 70 at 150–67.
75 In that sense, see the Molgat-MacGuigan Committee, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, Final Report, 4th Sess., 28th Parliament (1972); Prime Minister Trudeau in 1976, quoted in Beaudoin, G.A., Essais sur la Constitution 23, 337 (1979)Google Scholar; the Pépin-Robarts-Commission, A Future Together 114–15 (Task Force on Canadian Unity, 1979).
76 As to the “compact theory,” see Cook, R., Provincial Autonomy, Minority Rights and the Compact Theory, 1867–1921 (Studies of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1969)Google Scholar; Marchildon, G. and Maxwell, E., “Quebec’s Right of Secession under Canadian and International Law” (1992) 32 Virginia J. Int’l L. 583 at 593–98Google Scholar; Rémillard, G., Le Fédéralisme Canadien 122–40, 144–48 (1983)Google Scholar; Rogers, N. McL., “The Compact Theory of Confederation” (1931) 9 Can. Bar Rev. 395–417Google Scholar; Romanow, R., Whyte, J.D., and Leeson, H., Canada Notwithstanding: The Making of the Constitution 1976–1982 168–76 (1984).Google Scholar
77 Patriation Reference (Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753, 807, 125 D.L.R. (3d) 1. Mardand and Ritchie, JJ. considered the approval of the provinces a legal necessity.
78 Ibid., 803 (S.C.R.).
79 Ibid., gog. Laskin, C.J.C, and Estey and Mclntyre, JJ. rejected the existence of a “convention.”
80 Quebec Veto Reference, A.G. Que. andA.G. Can. (Re Objection by Quebec to a Resolution to Amend the Constitution), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793, 140 D.L.R. (3d) 385.
81 Ibid., 816–17 (S.C.R.).
82 Cf. Finkelstein, N. and Vegh, G., The Separation of Quebec and the Constitution of Canada (1992)Google Scholar; Woehrling, J., “Les aspects juridiques d’une éventuelle sécession du Québec” (1995) 74 Can. Bar Rev. 293–314.Google Scholar
83 In that sense, see T. Franck et al, supra note 2 at 430. See also the seemingly contradictory articles of Finkelstein, N., Vegh, G. and Joly, C., “Does Québec Have a Right to Secede at International Law” (1995) 74 Can. Bar. Rev. 225–60Google Scholar and J. Woehrling, supra note 81 at 314–29.
84 Bebler, A., “Das Schicksal des kommunistischen Föderalismus. Sowjetunion, Tschechoslowakei und Jugoslawien im Vergleich” (1992) 47 Europa-Archiv 375–86.Google Scholar
85 Morgenstern, C., Galgenlieder: Die unmögliche Tatsache (1905).Google Scholar
86 See the references in Beckmann-Petey, M., Der jugoslawische Fôderalismus 128–31 (1990)Google Scholar; see also Bugajski, J., Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe (1995).Google Scholar
87 Cf. Bothe, M. and Schmidt, C., “Sur quelques questions de succession posées par la dissolution de l’URSS et celle de la Yougoslavie” (1992) 96 Rev. D.I.P. 811–42Google Scholar; Brunner, G., “Minderheiten in der Sowjetunion” 34 German ìfcarbook of International Law 354–412 (1991)Google Scholar; Saxer, U.W., “The Transformation of the Soviet Union: From a Socialist Federation to a Commonwealth of Independent States” (1992) 14 Loyola of Los Angeles I.C.L.J. 581–715Google Scholar; Schweisfurth, T., “Vom Einheitsstaat (UdSSR) zum Staatenbund (GUS)” (1992) 52 ZaôRV 541–702Google Scholar; Yakemtchouk, R., “Les républiques bakes et la crise du fédéralisme soviétique” (1990) 43 Studia diplomaticaGoogle Scholar, nos. 4–6 and “L’indépendance de l’Ukraine” (1993) 46 Studia diplomatica, nos. 3–5.
88 Quoted by Kherad, R., “La reconnaissance internationale des Etats baltes” (1995) 96 Rev D.I.P. 843 at 855.Google Scholar Georgia, which organized an independence referendum on Mar. 31, 1991, argued similarly that she had declared her independence on May 26, 1918; that the Government of the Soviet Union had recognized her independence in the Peace Treaty of May 7, 1920; and hence the Treaty of Alliance with the Soviet Union of May 21, 1921, inflicted on her after the annexation, was as null as the Treaty of Union of 1922. As to this, see Brunner supra note 86 at 369.
89 On that issue, see Cassese, A., “Self-Determination of Peoples and the Recent Break-Up of USSR and Yugoslavia” in Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya 131 at 133–36 (1993).Google Scholar For criticism of the invocation of the right of self-determination by the non-Baltic republics, see Mullerson, R., “Self-Determination of Peoples and the Dissolution of the USSR” ibid., at 567–85.Google Scholar See also Smith, G. (ed.), The Baltic States (1994)Google Scholar; Sprudzs, A. (ed.), The Baltic Path to Independence: An International Reader (1994).Google Scholar
90 Charpentier, J., “Les déclarations des Douze sur la reconnaissance des nouveaux Etats” (1992) 96 Rev. D.I.P 343–55Google Scholar; Kherad, supra note 87 at 843–72; Rich, R., “Recognition of States: The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union” 4 Eur. J. Int’l L. 36–65 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schäfer, O., “Die Anerkennung von Staaten als Mittel der Kriegsverhinderung?” in Festschrift Georg Bock 187–208 (1993).Google Scholar
91 As to this and the following issue, see Hannum, H., “Self-Determination, Yugoslavia, and Europe: Old Wine in New Bottles?” (1993) 3 Trans. L. & C.P. 57–69Google Scholar; Hummer, W., “Problème der Staatennachfolge am Beispiel Jugoslawien” (1993) 3 S.Z.I.E.R. 425–59Google Scholar; Weller, M., “The International Response to the Dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” (1992) 86 AJIL 569–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar According to Opinion No. 11 of the Arbitration Commission of July 16, 1993 (32 I.L.M. 1587-89), Oct 8, 1991, is the decisive date in respect of state succession.
92 Foreign Policy Bulletin, July-Aug. 1991, 71–72.
93 See 4 Eur. J. Int’l L. 72 (1993).
94 The former federal government of Yugoslavia, in declarations of Apr. 30 and July 2, 1993 (32 I.L.M. 1581-82, 1584-85) described the “utterances” of the Arbitration Commission as invalid and not binding on it The Arbitration Commission reacted by qualifying its opinions as “advisory” answers to questions by the chairman of the International Peace Conference on the former Yugoslavia (32 I.L.M. 1582–84).
95 (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1494–97.
96 In Croatia, on Dec. lg, xggi, the “Autonomous Serb Republic Krajina” was proclaimed; in Bosnia-Herzegovina, on Apr. 7, 1992, the “Serb Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina” was proclaimed; on July 3, 1992, the “Croatian Republic Herzeg-Bosnia” was proclaimed; on Sept. 10, 1993, the “Krajina of Cazin” in the enclave Bihac was proclaimed; and in Macedonia, on Apr. 5, 1992, the “Albanian Autonomous Republic Illyria” was proclaimed: cf. Hummer, supra note go at 441.
97 (1992) 32 I.L.M. 1497–99.
98 See above all Weller, supra note go at 589–93, 603–7; see a1so Pellet, A., “The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples” (1992) 3 Eur. J.I.L. 178–80.Google Scholar
99 Cf. Affaire Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso c. Mali), [1986] I.CJ. Rep. 554 at 565–67.
100 31 I.L.M. 1499–1500 (1992). See the criticism of Hannum, supra note 90 at 64–69.
101 (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1501-3.
102 Ibid. See also Cassese, supra note 89 at 143.
103 According to Opinion No. 11 of July 16, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1587–89 (1993), Mar. 6, 1992 (i.e., the date of the proclamation of the result of the referendum) was the crucial date in respect of state succession.
104 Cf. Meron, T., “Rape as a Crime under International Humanitarian Law” (1993) 87 AJIL 424–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Brien, J.C., “The International Tribunal for Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia” (1993) 87 AJIL 639–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oeter, S., “Kriegsverbrechen in den Konflikten urn das Erbe Jugoslawiens” (1993) 53 ZaôRV 1–48Google Scholar; Sandoz, Y., “Réflexions sur la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitaire et sur le rôle du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge en ex-Yougoslavie,” (1993) 3 S.Z.I.E.R, 461–90Google Scholar; Thürer, D., “Vom Nurnberger Tribunal zum Jugoslawien-Tribunal und weiter zu einem Weltstrafgerichtshof?” (1993) 3 S.Z.I.E.R. 491–516.Google Scholar
105 Opinion No. 6 of Jan. 11, 1992 (31 I.L.M. 1507-12).
106 Opinion No. 11 of July 16, 1993 (32 I.L.M. 1587-89).
107 Supra notes 93-97 and 100–1.
108 (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1521 at 1522.
109 Opinion No. 10 of July 4, 1992 (31 I.L.M. 1525-26).
110 See Degan, V.-D., Bring, O.E., and Malone, M. Kelly, “Agora: UN Membership of the Former Yugoslavia” (1993) 87 AJIL 240–48.Google Scholar For a contrary view, see Blum, Y.Z., “UN Membership of the ‘New’ Yugoslavia: Continuity or Break?” (1992) 86 AJIL 830–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar and (1993) 87 AJIL 248–51; Hummer, supra note 90 at 431–37. 450–59.
111 Opinion No. 11 of July 16, 1993 (32 I.L.M. 1587-89). As to state succession, see Opinion No. 11, supra at 1589–98, Opinions Nos. 12–13 of July 16, 1993, and Opinions Nos. 14-15 of Aug. 13, 1993.
112 Bútora, M. and Bútorová, Z., “Die unerträgliche Glattheit der Scheidung,” [1993] Europäische Rundschau 93–107Google Scholar; Hosková, M., “Die Selbstauflösung der CSFR” (1993) 53 ZaöRV 689–735Google Scholar; Schönenfeld, R., “Die Auflösung der Tschechoslowakei. Glück und Ende eines Bundesstaates” (1993) 48 Europa-Archiv 228–38.Google Scholar
