# New nations and international treaties **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 1, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534 "2010-06-01T18:27:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534/1 "2010-06-01T18:27:36Z")
Suppose the country of Slobbovia has a civil war and splits into the new nations of Inner Slobbovia and Outer Slobbovia. Do the two new nations have to go through a long list of international treaties and decide which they want to sign and/or ratify? Is that even possible (e.g. can Inner Slobbovia sign the Geneva Convention treaties at any time it chooses)? Does it matter if the former country was a signatory to a treaty? My guesses: a) If the government of the country so chooses, it can sign up to international treaties (although it might depend on the treaty). b) It depends how the country split whether the previous country’s treaties still apply. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534/2 "2010-06-01T18:40:17Z")
The Wiki article on [Succession of states](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states) would suggest that the two new states would inherit the treaty obligations of Slobbovia. That’s what happened with the split up of Czechoslovakia and of the Soviet Union. However, the fact that the split was as a result of a civil war might complicate matters: it might mean that many countries are unwilling to recognise one or both of the new states as a state. An example of that is the split up of Yugoslavia. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534/3 "2010-06-01T22:08:41Z")
The article says, > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Of course, each of those states will be subject to the international obligations that bound their predecessor but no reference for that assertion has been cited. Russia was recognized as the successor state to the Soviet Union in many arenas; is there any evidence that any of the other former SSRs were compelled to abide by treaties or agreements made by the Soviet Union _without_ becoming new signatories in their own right? ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534/4 "2010-06-01T22:13:26Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > The Wiki article on [Succession of states](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states) would suggest that the two new states would inherit the treaty obligations of Slobbovia. That’s what happened with the split up of Czechoslovakia and of the Soviet Union. My understanding was that Russia was declared the successor state of the Soviet Union. This means that all the other post-Soviet states had to establish their own diplomatic relations, since they didn’t inherit any of them. It’s certainly possible that they still opted to honour the Soviet Union’s treaty obligations, though. As for Czechoslovakia, it is claimed [on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia) that neither the Czech Republic or Slovakia opted to claim recognition as the successor state of Czechoslovakia. Both of them still decided to honour all treaties that the previous country had entered into. > [@](#): > > However, the fact that the split was as a result of a civil war might complicate matters: it might mean that many countries are unwilling to recognise one or both of the new states as a state. An example of that is the split up of Yugoslavia. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sought recognition as the successor state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but this was denied to them as they were engaged in wars with other former Yugoslavian states at the time. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-nations-and-international-treaties/541534/5 "2010-06-02T16:35:39Z")
Interesting. I’m a little surprised by the Wikipedia claim that both new states would inherit the treaty obligations of the parent state, though.