This was inspired by a post in Off-Topic about mine warfare restriction treaties, in which various posters commented on which treaties Iraq and/or the USA had or had not signed.

In particular, someone pointed out some limitations on mines that were included in the Hague 1907 conventions. Iraq, of course, did not exist in 1907, while the Ottoman Empire (which owned that soil at the time) and the British (who oversaw Iraq after the fall of the Ottomans) did.

This got me wondering...

When a new country emerges from an old one -- India from Britain, the various new countries from Yugoslavia, or whatever -- is there a standard rule of thumb about whether the new country is assumed to be bound or not bound by the previous owner's treaties? (I am assuming the answer, in general, is that the new country is free of them, unless explicitly stated otherwise.) Does some supervisory body like the UN, or the body with which the treaties are filed in the Hague/Geneva/wherever, go around to each new government that emerges and ask them if they would care to sign? Or is this just sort of a random thing?

A number of these "old" treaties were signed by "everyone" at the times the treaties were written, and some of them still remain in force - but noone ever talks about the adding or subtracting of signatures from them as countries appear and disappear, only about the decision of an existing government to join or withdraw from them.

Any insights those with more knowledge of such things can shed?

A new country is not bound by any agreements which it is not a party to. Most "new" countries do sign old agreements which most of the world has signed, though there are exceptions.

To use one of your examples, India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Great Britain has signed it. Though, when this treaty was created, India was already independent.

There are no automatic rules about what applies in these situations; it entirely depends on the will of the countries involved.

In the 1970s the communist governments of Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed an agreement to build a system of dams along the Danube around Gabcikovo but after the communists imploded in 1990 Hungary immediately recognized the project would be an environmental disaster. They used the excuse of Czechoslovakia's demise at the end of 1991 to declare the treaty null and void (since the state Hungary had signed the treaty with no longer existed) but Slovakia insisted on moving ahead with the project. They wrangled for several years and brought their case before the International Court of Justice and in 1997 it ruled against Hungary. Hungary cooperated afterwards, but Hungary was compliant because it was at the time a post-communist country in desperate need of help from the international community, but the International Court of Justice has no way of enforcing its rulings.

In 1996 when the PQ was holding a refereundum on Quebec's independence from Canada, the U.S. made some statements to the effect that all of the treaties between Ottawa and Washington would not apply to Quebec, as far as it was concerned. That would have had dire economic consequences for an independent Quebec.

I think it depends on the type of government change the country went through.

Not uninteresting to see what will happen with Iraq. It had signed treaties with Russian and French companies, regarding oil exploration. If the US make it clever, they can get the oil for themselves. (and the Iraqis cheer!)

Originally posted by Vrylakas
In 1996 when the PQ was holding a refereundum on Quebec's independence from Canada, the U.S. made some statements to the effect that all of the treaties between Ottawa and Washington would not apply to Quebec, as far as it was concerned. That would have had dire economic consequences for an independent Quebec.

Who wouldn't the US want an independent Quebec?
To much Frencies to close to home? :)

Cecasander wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
In 1996 when the PQ was holding a refereundum on Quebec's independence from Canada, the U.S. made some statements to the effect that all of the treaties between Ottawa and Washington would not apply to Quebec, as far as it was concerned. That would have had dire economic consequences for an independent Quebec.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who wouldn't the US want an independent Quebec?
To much Frencies to close to home?

Uh, the "Frencies" are already there, and have been for 3 and a half centuries. I think political stability in Canada is the overriding concern.

AFAIK, the new govt. of Iraq will have to uphold any contracts made with Russia and France unless it wants to bankrupt itself on legal fees.;)

Besides, the US cannot just cancel and nullify the contracts as they are enforceable in a court.

Well, Argentina during the 19 century was a confederacy, and Uruguay was a province of the confederacy.
Brazil wanted to conquer Uruguay to have the River Plate as a territorial limit, so we went to war against Brazil a couple of times.
The wars were disrupting the trade, so the british offered themselves as mediators and they decided to make Uruguay an independent country, (un estado tapón) estado tapon means states that are created with the sole purpose of separating countries, like Afghanistan, wich was created to separate british and russian possesionss.

There are no real differences between argentineans and uruguayans, look the same, same, culture, traditions, music.
We feel very close to them, many uruguayans have relatives at the other side of the river.

Anyway, that totally artificial separation has proven itself useful, at least for the uruguayans, they historically have been more stable than Argentina.

Only recently, when Uruguay came close to an Argentina-like crash (don't know if it happened, everything is blended out by Iraq coverage), some Uruguayan described his country as: "a beach lined with banks".

This is the second best definition of a country I heard (the best one being "the Honduran type of government is Institutionalized Kleptomany" in a Newsweek article).

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
Well, Argentina during the 19 century was a confederacy, and Uruguay was a province of the confederacy.
Brazil wanted to conquer Uruguay to have the River Plate as a territorial limit, so we went to war against Brazil a couple of times.
The wars were disrupting the trade, so the british offered themselves as mediators and they decided to make Uruguay an independent country, (un estado tapón) estado tapon means states that are created with the sole purpose of separating countries, like Afghanistan, wich was created to separate british and russian possesionss.

I didn't know Uruguay belonged to Argentina.
England in the 19th century, splited, or attempted to separate, every single in country in Latin America. The fact that England chose to form a new country out of Uruguay rather than make it part of Brazil or Argentina is a prove of that policy.
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and possibly Venezuela, were meant to be one single country, but due to pressure from both the US and England, they ended up divided and poor.
Brazil was also going to pulverized into many smaler states, but the fact that we became an Empire after the independence prevented that from happening to us.
You see it wasn't our fault.