State Succession with Respect to Multilateral Treaties in the Context of Secession: From the Principle of Tabula Rasa to the Emergence of a Presumption of Continuity of Treaties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the issue of State succession to multilateral treaties in the specific context of secession. We begin our analysis by defining the term “secession” in order to distinguish it from other cases of dismemberment of States. The issue of succession to treaties in the event of secession will only be analysed after having succinctly examined the recent practice of States in the context of dissolution of States. The second part of this paper examines the practice of secessionist States prior to the adoption of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. The paper will investigate Pakistan, Singapore and Bangladesh as States that exemplify this practice. The practice adopted by these secessionist States has generally followed the principle of tabula rasa. The third part examines the regime established under the 1978 Vienna Convention in the specific case of secession. In this chapter, we will present a history of the work of the International Law Commission (ILC), including its numerous internal conflicts that have resulted in the adoption of the principle of continuity of treaties, which was in fact contrary to the practice of secessionist States at the time. Lastly, we will analyse State practice with regard to succession to treaties in the recent case of the secession of Montenegro (2006). Given the fact that there is very limited contemporary practice with regards to secession, we will also analyse the position adopted by two eventual candidates for independence, that of Quebec and Scotland.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".