Report 20 / Europe & Central Asia 20 February 1997 2 minutes State Succession With the ongoing reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and plans for the imminent privatisation of a number of industrial enterprises, the question has arisen as to whether the Bosnia and Herzegovina central government or the sub-state entities – Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina – properly succeed to the immovable assets of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia located on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This memorandum seeks to answer this question. Share Facebook Twitter Email Linkedin Whatsapp Save Print Download PDF Executive Summary With the ongoing reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and plans for the imminent privatisation of a number of industrial enterprises, the question has arisen as to whether the Bosnia and Herzegovina central government or the sub-state entities -- Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- properly succeed to the immovable assets of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia located on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This memorandum seeks to answer this question. After reviewing and evaluating the specific facts relating to the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, the establishment of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the creation of Bosnia’s internal political units, and the modification of those units by the Dayton Peace Accords in light of the public international law of state succession, including the law as represented by the traditional past practice of states, the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts (1983 Vienna Convention), and recent state practice, this memorandum reaches the following conclusions: Traditional state practice, the 1983 Vienna Convention, and the opinion of the Legal Advisers of the Council of Europe indicate only state entities possess the necessary capacity to succeed to the rights and obligations of the predecessor state. Recent state practice in the case of the former Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia confirms that only state entities are considered to possess the necessary capacity to succeed to the rights and obligations of the predecessor state. Throughout the course of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the sub-state entities of the Republika Srpska, the Republic of Krajina, and the Bosnian Federation attempted without success to participate in public forums and diplomatic conferences addressing state succession issues. The decisions of the European Union Arbitration Commission relating to matters of state succession support the assumption of territorial assets by states and not sub-state entities. World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other lender institution practice supports the assumption of territorial assets by states and not sub-state entities. The constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted as an annex to the Dayton Accords did not express sufficient specific intent to cause the transfer of ownership of territorial assets from the central government to the sub-state entities. From 1992 until 1995/96 the Republic of Bosnia therefore may be considered to have held title to the territorial assets of the former Yugoslavia located on Bosnian territory. Given the absence of the articulation of an express transfer of this title from the state of Bosnia to its sub-state entities in the Dayton Accords, title may properly be considered to continue to rest with the central government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Related Tags More for you Podcast / Europe & Central Asia Prisoners of the Past? Political Crises and Ethnic Tensions in the Western Balkans Commentary / Europe & Central Asia Helping Keep Bosnia and Herzegovina Together