Succession of States Relating to Treaties and the Case of Secession: From the Principle of Tabula Rasa to the Emergence of a Presumption of Continuity of Treaties (La Succession D'Etats En Matiere De Traites Et Le Cas De La Secession: Du Principe De La Table Rase a L'Emergence D'Une Presomption De Continuite Des Traites)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the question of State succession to multilateral treaties in the context of secession. This paper first deals with the definition of secession and distinguish it from other types of State succession. It also briefly examines State practice on State succession to treaties in the context of the dissolution of the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. We then examine State practice in the context of the secession of Pakistan, Singapore and Bangladesh. The drafting history of Article 34 of the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties is studied in details. We also examine the official position adopted by the Government of Quebec on State succession to treaties in the context of the 1995 referendum. Our conclusion is that no customary rule of international law has yet emerged in the context of secession. However, there is an emerging presumption in favour of the continuity of multilateral treaties.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".