INT ERNATIONAL LAW - STATE SU CCESSION , 5 Erit rea to it. part ies ' had through the Federation assimilated are � h whic tes Sta becoming par·� of a di�ere11t i:1ternational personality. ther eby , pi i Eth � � ir to princ i ples of the .la\v of na! 1ons such international personality is not the Under trea t i es entered 1nto by anotl1 er State; thus tlie by bo1 1nd be to Con cordat ed . uir q · re r 11t B 195'1 ft ·ea m . a ay r1t on · E e go f11 1n rther and conclud.e that orce ! � no � . _ liad period before the Federatio11 the Concordat had ceased 1nte r1n1 the g duri n even ?. force to be in 111e Court gav � no . r �aso1 � ,vhy . it tl1 ough � that tl1.e Concordat might have 1n ter !111 per iod, a11d 1t appears that such an argument tl11s 1n force in ained renl _ law tl1e of pr111ctples of 11ations. There is general agree tl1e by rebtrtted be ;vould �eot an1ong i11ternatio�al j11rists today . on t]�e pri11ciple that a State which s11cceeds anot}1 er St,1te in so,1 ere1gnty over a territory 1s not a successor to tl1 e constit11tional authorit)' of the predecessor State. It follows from tl1is tl1at the public law of the 1e the e:1-d of its sovereig1Jty. 6 Treaties e11tered i 11to i , st1rv can11ot s State or predec es 7 It tl1us law public the of such of part 1 States. forn follows that States between tl1e Concordat ceased to l1ave force in .Eritrea from the time that the Italian State lost its so, iereignty over it. Tl1is n1ea11s tl1at even during the interim period, the Concordat had lost its force because Italia11 sovereignty l1ad given place to British effective sovereig11ty. 8
�::
L,,
So far ,ve l1ave been dealing with t·he effectiveness of the Concordat. Tl1ere is a related and necessary ql1estion regardi11g the effectiveness of what tl1e Court referred to as tl1e ''related norms," namely, law No. 847 of 1929. It was this legislation, ratl1er tl1an the Concordat itself that was the im 1nediate basis of the claimed indissolvability of tl1e religio11s marriage.
The Court held that once the Co11cordat became ineffective, law No. 847 o_f 1929 ceased to be in force in Eritrea.. To s11pport its view, the Court quoted a11 Italian authority's statement: ''If a treat)' is exting11ished for a11y reason whatsoever, the norms set up as a rest1lt of the treaty aJso become extinguished, without the necessity of a11y declaration to tl1is effect." The Co11rt a11alogised tbe sit11ation to a collapsi11g roof. A c l1 a11 delier ]1a11ging from the roof wo11Id have to co1ne down as the roof does. The chandelier a11alogy is colourful, bt1t not very precise. It is not necessarJ;, as a n1atter of logic, tl1at tl1e norms set tip as a rest1lt of a treaty auto1natically becon1e i11effective as s0011 as the treaty itself is exting11isl1ecl. This _\.yas recognised by the German Reicl1sgericht, the higl1est German col1rt, when it was co11fronted with the san1e issue. It held that, ''even if it be admitted tha.t the binding force of t]1e Co11l✓entio11 1111der internatio11al law . . . ceases ipso facto • • • the contents of the Convention, insofar as they have become · part of 011r civil �aw, do 11ot cease to be valid . . . Tl1e i11ternational validity a11d tl1e inter11al e_ffect iveness are 11ot 11ecessarily i11terclepende11t. '' 9 . (Emphasis added).
5·
'V1e. Perma11ent Cot1rt of International Justice, in the case of Certai11 Gern1ar1 Jrzterests in ohs h Upper Silesia, P.C.T.J., Ser. 1-\ No. 7 p. 29 (1926). 6· R.P. O 'Connell, The La,.,.,) of State S11ccessio11 (1956). p. 211. 7 · Refer for instance to Art. 122 of tli e Etli iopian Revised Constitt1tion of 1955. 0'Conne1l, I11ter11atio11al LaJv (1965), vol. I p. 3 68 . . gericfits i,z, J,s eic · es R v. L .CI-I. i11 Paris (R eicl1sgericl1t, Gern1a11y, 1914), E11tsc,1i eid.u;1ge,z d · · . 11a a v (1965 v 1 1 e1 ' u�P1tsc �h 1 vol. 85 p. 374; as fo t1nd in R. Stanger, Materials o11 P11blrc l11ternat10 l L l ibhshed, Law Library, 1-I.S.I.U niversity), p. 496.
:: i!·11 i· .
203 -