13

Reparation from colonialism is a topic that comes up from time to time. Poland demanded €1.3t from Germany for WWII reparations as recently as 2022. Although the issue was settled by the Potsdam Agreement and later the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, Poland claims that they don't count since Poland was being controlled by the Soviets.

Similarly in 1965 the Treaty on Basic Relations Between Japan and the Republic of Korea was signed between Japan and South Korea. South Korea gave up further rights for reimbursement in that agreement but some Koreans claim that the treaty should be void since it was a unilateral decision by military dictator Park Chung Hee, whose party passed relevant bill during a boycott by the opposition and suppressed nationwide dissent.

While I do sympathize with the sentiment, in both cases the treaties were signed by their respective leaders. Are claims that the decisions were undemocratic and thus invalid well-received in other parts of the world? Can such arguments hold up in institutions such as the ICJ?

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    As I understand this question, it appears to be asking whether there is a precedent in law to annul such a treaty. As such, the question is more suited to Law SE than to Politics SE.
    – Rick Smith
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 14:42
  • It seems much more likely that a new government of country A might repudiate a treaty than that many other governments would accept that any change of government of A would automatically annul any treaties that the prior government agreed to. The difference is that the former is an affirmative action by the new government, which that government should expect might have repercussions, whereas the latter is a passive result that the new government might reasonably hope would not have negative reprcussions.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 22:45
  • @JohnBollinger Umm.. automatically annulling every treaty on change of government would arguably have far more and deeper repercussions than losing one treaty, even if nothing else bad happens (like another government taking specific retaliatory action). Can you be more specific about what you mean by "negative repercussions?"
    – jpaugh
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 14:34
  • 1
    @jpaugh, my "annul any treaty" was meant to be taken as "annul any particular treaty", not as "annul every treaty". The comparison is between A affirmatively refusing to be bound to any of its obligations under some specific treaty, and A denying that it has any obligations under that treaty in the first place (and the other parties accepting that). Of course, either way forgoes benefiting from the other parties' obligations, but the former has at least reputational costs, and indeed, risks specific retaliatory action.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 14:54
  • @JohnBollinger In that case, the major distinction between the two scenarios is whether other countries accept it or not. The difference between "refusing" and "denying" to be bound by a treaty are comparatively much smaller.
    – jpaugh
    Commented Dec 22, 2023 at 23:00

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10

As a practical matter, international law is irrelevant except as PR for countries doing whatever they want to do in this situation.

Nobody is going to invade a country or force a regime change because a new regime refuses to abide by a treaty entered into by the former regime that the new regime claims was undemocratic (unless it was a matter so serious, like nuclear arms threats, that they'd invade with or without the treaty abrogation anyway).

And, as a practical matter, only a small number of countries are parties to any treaty addressing this issue. Furthermore, the fact that so few countries are willing to agree that the "Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties" (as haxor789 notes) is or should be international law, also undermines the international law argument that binding a new regime to an old regime's treaty is "customary international law" that is binding in the absence of a treaty.

Improve this answer
6
  • 3
    To be fair, wars over the dissolution of treaties signed under dubious circumstances have happened in the past. It's not really considered acceptable nowadays, of course, but at the same time I'm not sure if all states would agree it's nonacceptable, at least not if the signee who left is considerably weaker than the other party.
    – kenod
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 8:29
  • 1
    The question is in what sense treaties between two nation states are legally binding at all. It is my understanding that they are only binding as long as the states accept them to be. Either country can simply choose not to honor the treaty and officially say so (or not). There is no court that the other country could complain to. It is all reputation and possibly peer pressure from other countries.
    – quarague
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 10:57
  • In the case of Germany and Poland, in theory, the European Union could decide something about such a conflict, so international law would not be completely irrelevant. But in the actual case, they will not intervene.
    – J Fabian Meier
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 15:44
  • State succession is a different concept from what the question is about. Though with a different government, Poland anno 2022 is the same state as Poland anno 1990 and thus the Vienna convention doesn't apply here.
    – Gaslight Deceive Subvert
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 1:55
  • 1
    In your answer you mention the Vienna convention on state succession. That convention applies when one state succeeds another. But no state has succeeded the state that signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany. Thus, the convention is inapplicable.
    – Gaslight Deceive Subvert
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 3:10
6

That is indeed a good question and I'm looking forward to see answers better than this one.

For the time being the relevant treaties seem to be the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties

The problem is that the first is largely concerned with making treaties in the first place and doesn't (to my knowledge) touch this question, while the latter distinguishes between "newly independent states" read former colonies declaring their independence and "cases of separation of parts of a state" which essentially means all other forms of new states. Where the newly independent states get a "clean slate" and can choose to continue treaties if they like to but aren't forced if they don't while for the rest the successor inherits the old treaties.

Though while that sounds like an answer, this second convention was signed and ratified by so few countries (most of them successors or newly independent countries) that it's more or less irrelevant in practical application.

That being said it is a very interesting question whether treaties with a government that is not in possession of a democratic mandate are valid beyond their time in office or if a successor could declare them null and void.

If there is a continuation then it enables the practice of making exploitative treaties with dictators that benefit the dictators at the expense of the country at large and binds the country to these contracts even after the dictator is disposed of.

While if there is no continuation then at worst all international treaties are only valid for the overlap of the signing governments being in office (which could be a days if there are hundreds of singing members).

Though as with all international laws and treaties, there's usually a problem to confirm and enforce their validity, like in the worst case the signing parties just say "treaties be damned" and go to war with each other or one agrees the invalidity of the treaty to avoid that.

Improve this answer
5
  • If a treaties by a "government that is not in possession of a democratic mandate" are void after the government dissolves, democracies are at more risk of dissolved treaty, not less.
    – fectin
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 0:17
  • 1
    @fectin: Why? ("If a treaties by a "government that is not in possession of a democratic mandate" are void after the government dissolves, democracies are at more risk of dissolved treaty, not less.")
    – Vectornaut
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 19:48
  • @Vectornaut the next time an election cycle that puts a different party in power, the old government has lost whatever democratic mandate they had.
    – fectin
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 4:11
  • 1
    @fectin: This question is about nullifying a treaty with a government that lacked a democratic mandate at the time the treaty was signed. The central conceit of democracy is that the actions of the state more or less reflect "the will of the people" at the time. Societies change, and may regret past decisions. When people democratically ratify a durable agreement, like a treaty or a constitution, they do it in spite of knowing—and because of knowing—that it'll be hard to back out of. It's very different for people to be bound by a durable agreement that they don't feel they ever agreed to.
    – Vectornaut
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 5:53
  • 1
    @fectin: [continued] The central conceit of democracy is a fantasy, in real and important ways! There are serious mathematical problems with the idea of a "will of the people." You might reasonably argue that you can't be bound by a law or a constitution signed decades or centuries before you were born. Nonetheless, right or wrong, that central conceit is the bedrock this question is built on, so it's hard to meaningfully discuss the question without it.
    – Vectornaut
    Commented Dec 21, 2023 at 6:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .