Appointment and Succession External Debts: SFR Yugoslavia
APPORTIONMENT AND SUCCESSION OF EXTERNAL DEBTS: THE CASE OF THE SFR YUGOSLAVIA by Mojmir Mrak*
I. Introduction
With the break-up of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in the early 1990s, both the newly established states on its territory and the international community in general were once again forced to confront the many problems of state succession. There is no customary international law that can be applied to different types of succession and, moreover, attempts to codify international law in this area have so far not been very successful (1). In the absence of established international legal rules, how the international community actually behaves in matters of state succession varies according to the circumstances of each individual case.
In the case of the SFRY, succession problems were further complicated by two facts. First, disintegration of the country was a violent process. It culminated in open armed conflicts involving Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), and to a much lesser extent also Slovenia. Second, there remains no consensus among the successor as to states what actually happened on the territory of the SFRY. In contrast to the four successor states, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia, and the international community as a whole, which argue that the predecessor state has ceased to exist and that consequently all five new states are its equal successors, the FRY continues to claim that it is the continuator of the predecessor state from which the other four countries seceded.
This article focuses on a specific issue of the SFRY’s dissolution, namely on the apportionment and succession of the state’s external debt obligations. Significant advancements have been made in this area since 1991, as both debtor countries and various groups of creditors have been keenly interested in entering into agreements
____________________
* Professor of
I. Introduction
With the break-up of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in the early 1990s, both the newly established states on its territory and the international community in general were once again forced to confront the many problems of state succession. There is no customary international law that can be applied to different types of succession and, moreover, attempts to codify international law in this area have so far not been very successful (1). In the absence of established international legal rules, how the international community actually behaves in matters of state succession varies according to the circumstances of each individual case.
In the case of the SFRY, succession problems were further complicated by two facts. First, disintegration of the country was a violent process. It culminated in open armed conflicts involving Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), and to a much lesser extent also Slovenia. Second, there remains no consensus among the successor as to states what actually happened on the territory of the SFRY. In contrast to the four successor states, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia, and the international community as a whole, which argue that the predecessor state has ceased to exist and that consequently all five new states are its equal successors, the FRY continues to claim that it is the continuator of the predecessor state from which the other four countries seceded.
This article focuses on a specific issue of the SFRY’s dissolution, namely on the apportionment and succession of the state’s external debt obligations. Significant advancements have been made in this area since 1991, as both debtor countries and various groups of creditors have been keenly interested in entering into agreements
____________________
* Professor of
References: (3) End-1991 structure of the “non-allocated” is based on data and information gathered from various sources. (4) The World Bank, Global Development Finance, 1998, p (6) Stanič, Ana, Financial Issues of State Succession : The Yugoslav Case, p. 10, citing Shaw, M.N., The Succession Revisited, FYBIL, 1994, p. 93 and the ILC Report, ILC Yearbook, part 2, 1981, p. 74. (8) Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debt. UN Doc. A/CONF. 114/14 (7. April 1983), Article 36. (13) Ibid., p. 781. (14) International Legal Materials (ILM), 1992, No.6 (15) UN Doc.S/RES/757 (May 1992). (16) UN Doc.S/RES/777 (September 1992). (18) Decision taken by the IMF Executive Board on 14 December 1992 (see Press Release No. 92/92 of the IMF, December 15, 1992. (19) Decision taken by the Board of Directors of the World Bank on 25 February 1993 (see Press Release No 93/S43 of the World Bank, February 26, 1993) (20) For the analysis of the differences, see Shihata, F.I (21) Press Release of the IMF, December 15, 1992. (32) IMF, IMF Approves Stand-by for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Press Release No. 98/19, May 29, 1998.