I. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BIJELIC V MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA (APPLICATION NO 19890/05) JUDGMENT OF 11 JUNE 2009

Abstract

What happens when a European State breaches its international obligations and then ceases to exist? Does its obligation to repair the harm caused by the breach devolve to a new state that occupies part of the territory of an old state? When will a new European State be held accountable for violations that took place before the entry into force of a human rights treaty? This comment examines the European Court of Human Rights' (hereinafter ‘the Court’ or ‘the ECtHR’) encounter with the law of state succession, specifically succession to treaty obligations and succession to responsibility for the wrongful acts of a predecessor state. In Bijelic v Montenegro and Serbia the Court held that Montenegro was to be automatically regarded as a party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ‘the Convention’), as well as Protocol No 1 thereto, from the date of its declaration of independence from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (hereinafter ‘the State Union’), and that Montenegro alone could be held responsible for violations of these instruments occurring in the territory of the State Union that began before March 2004 (the date of ratification of the Convention and Protocol 1 by the State Union) but continuing through 2009. Bijelic is not the first time the Court has been called upon to decide a question of succession to treaty obligations or responsibility, but the judgment is noteworthy for the unique approach the Court adopted to deciding both of these issues. This comment will place the decision in the larger context of Court practice with respect to both of the implicated succession issues, identify the aspects the Trial Chamber's analysis that distinguish it from its predecessors and discuss the decision of the Court in light of general and emerging trends in international law. In the process, this comment will provide a uniquely thorough examination of ECtHR practice with respect to succession to responsibility and identify the trends, to the extent that such trends exist, that characterize the Court's approach to this area of law.

Codification and progressive development of rules on succession of states in respect of state responsibility

“…Takve posebne okolnosti, kao što je objašnjeno i u prethodnim izveštajima Specijalnog izvestioca, predstavljaju direktnu vezu između posledica protivpravnog dela i teritorije ili stanovništva države ili država sukcesora, ili činjenice da je izvršilac protivpravnog dela bio organ država prethodnice koji je kasnije postao organ države naslednice. 67 Vezujući se na pomenute nalaze, Specijalni izvestilac formulisao je nacrt čl. 17 u čijem st. 1 se propisuje da, "u slučajevima sukcesije država u kojima država prethodnica i dalje postoji, ta država je u obavezi da nadoknadi štetu prouzrokovanu njenim međunarodnim protivpravnim aktom, ukoliko takva šteta nije nadoknađena restitucijom".…”