Page 40 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

Embassy in Spain that the conduct of public hearings by a which remains internationally unchanged by the change of
Corigressional committee is an exercise of a sovereign governments. Third, a government may bind a state in-
function by a branch of the United States Government. ternationally. The state thereafter remains bound by many
Accordingly, if such hearings were conducted in another of the acts of its government regardless of the changes in
country (Spain) without its consent, this would constitute administration. 25 Likewise, the rights of a state remain
an infringement of that country's sovereignty. 16 unaffected by changes in government. 26
Fifth, every state is entitled to represent its nationals in b. The essential ingredient of a government in interna-
claims proceedings against another state for injury caused tional law is that it must be in control. The manner in
by the latter's violation of international law. 17 Although
the actual injury is to the person or property of nationals of 16. 1 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 256 [hereinafter
the state asserting the claim, international law treats the cited as Whiteman]. See generally I. Hyde, supra note 2, at 641-44.
17. The subject of international claims is treated more fully in
injury as having been suffered by that state. Therefore,
chapter 7, iqfra.
only the-state of which the aggrieved persons are nationals 18. See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Jurisdiction), [I9241
has standing to bring claims against another state for viola- P.C.I.J., ser. A, No. 2. See also note 177, idra.
tions of international law. 18 Except as otherwise provided 19. See Bishop, supra note 7, at 742; chapter 7, idra.
in the municipal law of the offending state, the aggrieved 20. Byelorussia and the Ukraine have separate memberships in the
United Nations, even though they are but parts of the Soviet Union and
persons do not have standing to prosecute such claims
do not conduct international relations. This strongly suggests that ad-
against that state. Their normal recourse, municipal law
mission into the United Nations depends largely upon political, rather
remedies having been exhausted, is to request that the than legal, considerations.
proper authorities of their national state intercede on their In 1948, during debate over the admission of Israel to the United Na-
behalf. 19 tions, Professor Jessup, then United States representative to the
3-5. Statehood and U.N. Membership. Article 4 of the Security Council, observed that "the term 'State,' as used and applied
Charter of the United Nations opens membership in the in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly
U.N. to "all . . . peace-loving States which accept the identical with the term 'State' as it is used and defined in classic text-
books of international law." See W. Friedmann, 0.Lissikyn. & R.
obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the Pugh, International Law Cases and Materials 154 (1969) [hereinafter
judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry cited as Friedmann].The basic issue regarding Israel's statehood con-
out these obligations." It is arguable whether or not mem- cerned her lack of a precisely defined territory. Besides arguing that
bers of the U.N. are required to admit as additional mem- classical international law does not necessarily govern the meaning of
bers only those entities meeting the standard minimurn the term "State" for article 4 purposes, Professor Jessup also contended
that "the concept of territory does not necessarily include precise
qualifications for statehood as defined by international delimitation of the boundaries of that territory." Id, at 155. Israel was
law. 20 In any event, Article 4 makes membership availa- admitted to United Nations membership, but because of the political
ble to "states" that also meet other criteria ("peace-lov- nature of this action it cannot be presumed that either of Professor
ing," etc.) besides statehood. Thus, denial of U.N. mem- Jessup's arguments necessarily was accepted. For purposes of the ad-
mission of former colonial tenitories to the United Nations, the tradi-
bership to a political entity is not necessarily (and usually
tional requirement of a stable and effective government in a territory
would not be) a denial of statehood. Major political en- claiming statehood has been deemphasized. It has been argued that this
tities that are not members of the U.N. are Switzerland, traditional requirement runs counter to developments in international
the two Koreas, and the two Germanies. law regarding a legal right of self-determination, and that it is often at
3-6. State Distinguished from Government. a. A variance with the political reality (anti-colonial pressures and unaccepta-
ble economic costs) that has caused Western European states in several
government is (1) a small group of people (2) who are in cases to withdraw from their former colonies before any adequate in-
effective control of the state. 21 Many defmitions of a state digenous system of government has been established. See Higgins, The
include a government as an essential part of the defini- Development of International Law Through The Political Organs of The
tion. 22 A distinction, however, between the two is useful United Nations 22 (1963), discussing the admission of Ruanda and
for several reasons. First, it assists in understanding the Burundi to United Nations membership.
21. Control is the quality stressed in judicial decisions as well as in
historical instances of a state continuing to exist for short practice. See Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic,
periods without a government: for example, China, dur- 234 N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24 (1923), and Salimoff v. Standard Oil Co. of
ing periods of interim anarchy in the 19th century, Austria New York, 262 N.Y. 220, 186 N.E. 679 (1933).
from 1938 to 1945,23 and Germany from 1945 to 22. See note 2, supra.
1949. 24 Certainly, a state cannot exist very long without a 23. Marek, Identi@ and Continui~ of Stabs in Public International
government, as its independence would soon be in jeopar- Law ch. 7 (1954).
24. See Yon GIahn The Occupation of Enemy Territory ch. 21
dy. Nevertheless, the fact that it can exist shows that the (1957) and citations therein. See also The Sfahrs of Germany, I World
two are distinct concepts. Second, the recognition of Polity 177 (1957).
governments often entails the selection of one faction 25. Oppenheim, supra note 2, at 925, 949; Tinoco Claims Arbitra-
over another by the recognizing government. These fac- tion (Great Britain-Costa Rica) 1 U.N.R.I.A.A. 369; Hopkins Claims
(United States-Mexico) 21 Am. J. Int'l L. 160 (1927).
tions are always groups of people vying for control of the
26. See The Sapphire, 78 U.S. (1 1 Wall.) 164 (1871), where a suit
already-existing state. It has been the practice of govern- by France in a U.S. court was unaKected by a revolutionary change in
knents to treat these groups as distinct from the state itself, France.