^I See J. Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 201. ^Z This section uses the extracts from the author's PhD thesis entitled 'State Continuity and Nationality in the Baltic States: International and Constitutional Law Issues' defended at the University of Cambridge in 1999. ³On events in the Baltic States in 1940, see A. Sprudzs and A. Rusis (eds.) (1968) Res Baltica: A Collection of Essays in Honor of the Memory of Dr. Alfred Bilmanis, Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, 1968; see also I. Grava-Kreituse, I. Feldmanis, D.A. Lebers; J. Goldmanis and A. Stranga (eds.), The Occupation and Annexation of Latvia, 1939-1940: Documents and Materials, Riga, 1995. For the view that the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact violated international law at the time, including bilateral agreements between the Baltic States and the Soviet Union, and that the occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was unlawful, see K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, 2°^d ed., Geneve, Libraire Droz., 1968, pp. 369-416; J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon, 1979, pp. 419-420; W. Hough, 'The Annexation of the Baltic

States' (1985) 6 New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law p. 303 et seq.; D.A. Loeber, 'Legal Consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the Baltic States on the Obligation to "Overcome the Problems Inherited from the Past'" (2001) 1 Baltic Yearbook of International Law (Bait Yrbk IL) pp. 121-166. For the aggressive plans of the USSR and Germany, see the first Secret Additional Protocol of 23 August 1939. Article 1 provided that: '[I]n the event of a territorial and political rearrangements in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R.' The Secret Supplementary Protocol to the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939 stated that: '[T]he Secret Supplementary Protocol signed on August 23, 1939, shall be amended in item 1 to the effect that the territory of the Lithuanian state falls to the sphere of influence of the U.S.S.R.... As soon as the Government of the U.S.S.R. shall take special measures on Lithuanian territory (italics added) to protect its interests, the present German-Soviet border, for the purposes of a natural and simple boundary delineation, shall be rectified in such a way that the Lithuanian territory situated to the southwest of the line marked on the attached map should fall to Germany...'. '. Reproduced in Raymond J. Sontag and James S. Beddie (eds.), Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941: Documents from the Archives of The German Foreign Office, Department of State, 1948, pp. 78, 107. ⁴ On the events preceding the conclusion of the Mutual Assistance Pacts and on their aims, as designed by the Soviet Union, see Boris Meissner, 'The Occupation of the Baltic States from a Present-Day-Perspective', in Talavs Jundzis (ed.), The Baltic States at Historical Crossroads, Riga, Academy of Sciences of Latvia, 1998. pp. 477-479. The view subsequently emerged that the Baltic State were naive in assuming that these Assistance Pacts would guarantee their security. For the naivety of Baltic officials, see Revue Baltique, 1940, 288, 292, 295-296. The ultimatum was presented to Lithuania on 14 June 1940, and Latvia and Estonia on 16 June 1940. ⁵ The Treaty of Defensive Alliance between Estonia and Latvia was signed on 1 November 1923. Ratification followed on 21 February 1924. Article 3 reads:

'The High Contracting Parties undertake to afford each other assistance should either of them suffer an unprovoked attack on its present frontiers. Accordingly, should one of the High Contracting Parties suffer an unprovoked attack, the other shall consider itself in a state of war and shall furnish armed assistance...'. See, A. Bilmanis, Latvian-Russian Relations: Documents, 2°^d print, Washington, D.C., The Latvian Legation, 1978, p. 246. ⁶ A Treaty of Good Understanding and Co-operation between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was concluded in 1934. Article 1 reads: 'In order to co-ordinate their efforts in the cause of peace, the three governments undertake to confer together on questions of foreign policy which are of common concern and to afford one another mutual political and diplomatic assistance in their international relations...'. '. Ibid. 250. There was no defensive alliance between the three Baltic States. Meetings of foreign ministers took place from time to time without, however, a systematic plan for co-operation. On the problems of regional co-operation among the Baltic States, Finland and Poland, especially the claim of both Poland and Lithuania to Vilnius, between the two wars, see: 'Wartime in Lithuania' (1940) 1 Revue Baltique 2, 297; W. Czaplinski, 'International Legal Aspects of Polish-Lithuanian Relations' (1991-1992) 19 Polish Yearbook of International Law pp. 31-48. 7See 'Soviet Russia's Ultimatum to Latvia', reproduced in Sontang & Beddie (1948) 202. ⁸ Revue Baltique, 1940, 296. ⁹ Soviet army units crossed the Estonian border on 17 June 1940. Simultaneously, units which were based in Estonia in accordance with the Mutual Assistance Pact

advanced toward Tallinn. Soviet forces entered Riga on the same day. They had already occupied Lithuania on 15 June 1940. ¹⁰ See 'Telephonogram from A.Vyshinskii to the Foreign Affairs Commissariat of the USSR', in Grava-Kreituse et al. (1995) 233. ¹¹ The obedience and indecisiveness of the President of Latvia in legitimising the Soviet demands by issuing the ordered directives is hotly debated among Latvian historians. See D.A. Lebers, `Latvijas valsts bojdeja 1940. gada. Starptautiski tiesiskie aspekti', V. Bluzma, O. Celle, T. Jundzis, D.A. Lebers, E. Levits and 1�. ZTle (eds.) Latvijas valsts atjaunosana 1986-1993 [Restoration of Latvia 1986-1993], Riga, LU Žumäla 'Latvijas Vesture' fonds, 1998, pp. 31-34. ¹² The Presidents of Estonia and Latvia, Konstantin Pats and Karlis Ulinanis, during the course of events were arrested and deported to a yet unknown Soviet destination. Their true fate is still held secret by the Russian government. ¹³ See 'Protocol No. 56. Meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers', reproduced in Grava- Kreituse (1995) 282-284.

^la In Estonia, the decision to hold elections on 14 July 1940 was adopted by the government on 4 July 1940. In Lithuania, the decision to hold elections on 14 July 1940 was published in the Official Gazette on 5 July 1940. The election results were as follows: in Lithuania 99.19 percent of 93 percent of the electorate demanded the formation of a Soviet union of the workers; in Latvia, 97 percent out of 94 percent, and 92 percent of 81 percent of Estonia's voters followed suit, ibid., 315. ^ls Grava-Kreituse (1995) 330-331. Estonia adopted its resolution on 22 July 1940, Latvia and Lithuania on 21 July 1940. These declarations, albeit adopted in slightly different legal forms in each Baltic State, in substance used the same arguments, i.e. they embodied the will of the people who had suffered a 'miserable' life under the previous governments. They could only together stand against imperialism. Before these declarations were adopted each parliament adopted an act establishing Soviet regime in the States concerned. In practice, the three Baltic States by 1939 had entered a stage of stable economic prosperity. ¹⁶ According to these powers, the Latvian Ambassadors had the following rights: a. to defend to the best ability Latvia's interests in all countries except Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; b. for this purpose to give binding orders to all Latvia's missions except (those) in the States previously mentioned; c. to operate with all State funds, movable and immovable property at the disposal of the said missions; ... e. to liquidate missions, with the exception of the Legation in the United States of America; f. to designate delegates to meetings and conferences ... ¹⁷ For the argument that the Baltic governments were naive, see E. Andersons, Latvijas vesture 1920-1940, Stockholm, Daugava, 1982, pp. 680-681.

¹⁸ See for, statements and diplomatic papers of the Baltic States and third States involved in the events of 1940, Foreign Relations (1959) 368-419, 426-443. ¹⁹ See for example, Loeber (2001) 147, also, note 104. ²⁰ See, Loeber (2001) 147-148, also notes 105-112. On the payment schemes developed by Germany for victims of slave labour; and see cf. R. Bank, 'The New Programs for Payments to Victims of National Socialist Injustice' (2001) 44 German Yearbook of International Law, p. 307, et seq.

²¹ It has been pointed out that the main problem of State succession is that no general succession to rights and obligations has taken place so far. See Sir Robert Jennings & Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law, 8 Ih ed., Harlow, Longman, 1992, 210. See for, a list of a few customary rules applicable in situations of State succession, B. Stern (ed.), Dissolution, Continuation and Succession in Eastern Europe, The Hague, Boston, London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998, 204-205. ²² _M. Koskenniemi, 'Report of the Director of Studies of the English-speaking Section of the Centre', in Pierre M. Eisemann and M. Koskenniemi (eds.) La succession d'Etats: la codification a I'eprouve des factslState Succession: Codification Tested against the Facts, The Hague, Boston, London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2000, pp. 121-122.

²³ See Article 2 (a) and Chapter 11 entitled 'Attribution of Conduct to a State' in Articles on State Responsibility. ²⁴ Crawford (2002), p. 117. ²⁵ Ibid., pp. 118-119.

²⁶ See, Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, ICJReports, 1995. 27 see, Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, 2003, para. 16.

²⁸ See, Article 21 of the Austrian State Treaty.

²⁹ See Crawford (2002) p. 257. 3o See Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Judgment, ICJReports, 1998, paras. 118, 123. ³¹ See further on the principle, e.g., Bin Cheng, General Principles as applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

³² See Crawford (2002) p. 202. ³³ _Ibid., p. 136.

³⁴ U.N.S.C. Res. 1272 (1999); Res. 1410 (2002). ³⁵ LT.N.S.C. Res. 1146 (1997) paras. 12, 23; Res. 1442 (2002) (extending the presence of UN peacekeeping forces until 15 June 2003). ³⁶ _Crawf_ord (2002), pp. 250-251. 3� See for more on this point, the discussion accompanying note 58 below.

³⁸ U.N.G.A. Res. 48/18, 15 November 1993. ³⁹ U.N.G.A. Res. 47/21, 25 November 1992; 48/18, 15 November 1993. When the bilateral treaties on the withdrawal of the Soviet army were concluded between the Russian Federation and the Baltic States, the Secretary-General of the UN in the report to the General Assembly mentioned this fact referring to the 'foreign forces' in the Baltic States. See Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organisation 1994, available at gopher://gopher.un.org/00/ga/docs/49/plenary/1 3, para. 474. ⁴⁰ See the 1992 Helsinki Summit Declaration, reproduced in A. Bloed, The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Analysis and Basic Documents, Dordrecht, Kluwer Law International, 1993, 705. ⁴¹ See, the 1994 Declaration on Baltic Issues, available at http://www.osce.org/docs/ english/1990-1999/summits/buda94e.htm.

42 see for, a fairly exhaustive account of the examples of State practice, Baltic Yearbook, 2001, volume 1. ^a3 See, among others, I. Ziemele, 'Is the Distinction between State Continuity and State Succession Reality or Fiction? The Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Germany'. (2001) 1 Balt. Yrbk. IL p. 191, p.p. 194-202.

⁴⁴_'La_ndsbergis asks Russia for billions', The Baltic Times, 18-24 May 2000, p. 1, 6. ⁴⁵ See, D. Zalimas and R. Satkauskas in this volume of the Baltic Yearbook. ⁴⁶ See, Deklaracija par Latv�as okupiciju, 22.08.1996. Published in Latvijas Vestnésis, No. 143, 27.08.1996.

⁴⁷ See, L. Malksoo in this volume of the Baltic Yearbook. ⁴⁸ See, L. Malksoo, 'Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportations in the Baltic States and International Law' (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL) _Pp. 757-787. ⁴⁹ On political and legal difficulties encountered in Estonia, see Malksoo (2001). In Latvia, see I. Ziemele, 'Questions Concerning Genocide. A Note on the Supreme Court Judgment' (1999) 7-10 Latvian Human Rights Quarterly pp. 327-341. ⁵⁰ The ILC in its work on Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in Relation to the Succession of States has come to prefer the principle of appropriate connection

with a view of avoiding statelessness. See LJN Doc A/RES/55/153 (Nationality of natural person in relation to the succession of States), 30 January 2001. ^si See, I. Ziemele, 'State Continuity, Human Rights and Nationality in the Baltic States', in Talavs Jundzis (ed.), The Baltic States at Historical Crossroads, Riga, Academy of Sciencies of Latvia, 2"^d rev. ed, 2001, pp. 224-247. ⁵² See, Z_akon o reabilitaciy zhertv politicheskih represyi, 18.10.1991. with last amendments in 2001 (on file with the author).

⁵³ Similar treaties were concluded with Estonia and Latvia. They are not in force. Russia and Lithuania consider the 29 July 1991 Treaty on Principles of Inter-State Relations to be binding on the parties. Subsequent agreements between two States are rooted in this Treaty. ⁵⁴ See, Ziemele (2001) 195, 196. ^ss On 30 March 1990, the Estonian Supreme Council, the legislative institution at the time, adopted the Resolution on the State Status of Estonia, which announced that the existence of the Republic of Estonia de jure had never been suspended because her territory had been illegally occupied since 1940 by the Soviet Union. See Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian SSR on the State Status of Estonia, 30 March 1990 (1990) 12 Eesti Yabariigi Ulemn5ukogu ja Yalitsuse Teataja 269. In Latvia on 4 May 1990 a Declaration on the Renewal of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia (the Independence Declaration) was adopted. The Act on the Restoration of the Lithuanian State was passed on 11 March 1990. ⁵⁶ See, S. Chernichenko, 'Kontinuitet, identichnost' i pravoprecmstvo gosudarstv' [State continuity, identity and succession] (1998) Ross�sk� ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo pravo 1996 1997, pp. 9-41. For further details, see Loeber (2001) 130-134. s� See for example, ICJ's discussion on the issue of claimed discharge of obligations by administering States upon the trusteeship agreement coming to an end over Nauru. See Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, ICJReports, 1992, para. 30.

⁵⁸ Crawford (2002) p. 266. ⁵⁹ _Ibid, p. 267. ⁶⁰ ICJReports, 1992, para. 13.

⁶¹ Ibid., para. 32.

⁶² See for, the German approach, Bank (2001).