چکیده:
It is clear that the commission of an internationally wrongful act by a state entails the international responsibility of that state. The fact that committing such an act will impose obligations on the responsible state and create rights for the injured state has been accepted by lawyers. However, there is debate among scholars as to the possibility of succession for the responsible or the injured state as to the obligations or rights arising from such an act. In this regard, most scholars in this field believe in the traditional doctrine of "negative succession" or "absolute doctrine of non- succession". According to this doctrine, in the case of succession, the state which has committed an internationally wrongful act or the State which has injured as a result of such an act, the resulting rights or obligations prior to the date of succession will not be transferred to the successor State. Therefore, this article argues that due to the unique features of each type of succession, offering a general solution for the various types of succession is not only illogical, but also, it can be criticized and rejected in situations such as the consent of the Successor State, resort to the principle of unjust enrichment or territorial nature of internationally wrongful act. The doctrine of non-succession needs to be adjusted by reviewing the realities of international society and in accordance with fundamental principles such as protecting human rights and dignity, justice, equity and prevention of unjust enrichment. A realistic approach which is appropriate for the specific characteristics of different types of succession should be adopted.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Therefore, this article seeks to demonstrate that, given the unique characteristics of each type of succession, issuing a general, unified, and absolute solution for various types of succession not only lacks a logical basis but, considering situations such as the consent of the successor state to compensate for the damage caused to the injured state, resorting to the principle of unjust enrichment, or the territorial nature of the international wrongful act, this theory is subject to criticism and rejection.
With a look at the realities of the modern international community and considering fundamental principles such as the protection of human rights, ensuring justice, observing fairness, and preventing unjust enrichment, the doctrine of non-succession must be modified, and a realistic approach appropriate to the specific characteristics of different types of succession should be adopted.
Arguments and Opinions in Favor of Non-Succession Various arguments, especially from ancients and jurists such as Hyde 3, Shaw 4, and Paul Guggenheim 5, have been made in support of this doctrine and the non-responsibility of the successor state for the commission of wrongful acts by another state (45: 2007, Dumberry); for example, one of the arguments presented has been that the victorious state only annexes the territory of the former state or establishes itself in that state, not the former state and its statesmen, and consequently, the results arising from their wrongful acts.
(
, 
, 
)
