State succession deed 1400/98 with
Focus on
UN - United Nations

Cooperation between NATO AND the UN: In particular, recognition by the UN of the NATO-SOFA treaty chain and thus of the 1400 Act of State Succession

The Dutch Air Force was stationed at the NATO facility in Zweibrücken at the time of the signing of the State Succession Treaty 1400, operating under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

Their presence was based on bilateral agreements between Germany (BRD) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the Dutch forces stationed there under NATO's mandate.

The Dutch fighter pilots lived on the base and conducted missions from the US Airbase Ramstein, which houses the Allied Air Command (AIRCOM) of NATO.

Since the Dutch Air Force is fully integrated into NATO and operates on behalf of the entire NATO alliance, their participation signaled approval of the treaty on behalf of all NATO member states.

This involvement extended beyond bilateral agreements between Germany and the Netherlands, impacting the entire NATO treaty framework, including the NATO-SOFA agreements. This triggered a domino effect, incorporating all NATO members into the treaty.

Furthermore, since NATO operates in many United Nations (UN) missions as an operational force, such as in Kosovo, full integration of NATO into the UN was not required for the State Succession Treaty to bind the UN.

The fact that NATO acts as a military force for the UN in specific situations was enough to ensure the automatic recognition of international agreements between the two organizations.

This automatic recognition of treaties between NATO and the UN ensures seamless cooperation, given that hundreds of international treaties are signed annually.

Without this, each treaty would require repeated ratifications, leading to a bureaucratic nightmare and potentially paralyzing NATO-UN operations.

This agreement also prevents interference from one organization during membership admissions of the other.

Germany and the Netherlands, as members of both NATO and the UN, effectively agreed to the State Succession Treaty on behalf of both organizations. In Germany, the Bundestag and Bundesrat ratified the treaty, underscoring its international legal significance.

This approval triggered the entire chain of NATO and UN agreements, leading to an automatic expansion of their international legal obligations.

Legal view of the 1400 Charter of State Succession with a focus on the United Nations and the world

Part 1

Introduction in bullet points

1. sale of the NATO property in Zweibrücken

- Originally used by the USA after 1945, later partly transferred to the FRG and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

- Use of the property in accordance with the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which regulates special rights and obligations for NATO states under international law.

2. deed of state succession 1400/98

- The contract appears (at first glance) to be a German real estate purchase contract, but is actually a deed under international law (state succession).

- The contract covers the sale "with all rights, obligations and components", which includes the transfer of sovereign rights.

- The property and its development (networks) are sold as a unit, which has far-reaching legal consequences.

3. partial nullity clause

- Provisions that are invalid under national law are replaced by provisions under international law.

- The contract remains legally effective through this clause and disguises its actual meaning.

4. Subjects of international law involved

- Subjects of public international law do not have to be named as sellers at the beginning of the contract, but it is sufficient if they have rights or obligations in the contract.

- The buyer is a natural person and may have sovereign rights, whereas commercial enterprises such as TASC Bau AG are excluded from the buyer community.

5. chain of treaties and supplementary instrument

- The instrument of state succession forms a chain of treaties that affects all previous international treaties of NATO and the UN.

- As a supplementary instrument, it automatically supplements all existing treaties without the need for renewed ratification.

6. Domino effect of the territorial expansion

- Starting point: The property in Zweibrücken is connected to the German public network, which leads to the transfer of the buyer's sovereign rights to the whole of Germany.

- Extension to NATO countries: The domino effect covers all physically connected networks in other NATO countries, resulting in the extension of the buyer's sovereign rights to these countries.

- Global extension: Transatlantic submarine cables extend the domino effect to the USA and Canada, and finally to all UN member states.

7. integration of NATO into the UN

- Liaison: NATO is closely integrated into UN structures, allowing for the automatic extension of state succession to UN treaties.

- Global coverage: The combination of NATO and UN memberships extends state succession to the entire world.

8. Global effects

- New world order:

The treaty leads to the creation of a "new world order" in which the purchaser of the instrument of state succession de facto assumes sovereign rights over the entire world.

- Global validity: The Instrument of State Succession functions as a supplementary instrument that extends all existing international treaties of NATO and the UN and unites the entire world.

Part 2

Summary and detailed explanation of the entire facts

1. Introduction: Sale of the NATO property in Zweibrücken

The sale of the NATO property in Zweibrücken begins seemingly innocuously as a real estate purchase agreement under German law. At first glance, it is an ordinary sale of a conversion property, which was superficially designed as a national real estate contract. However, this disguise is deliberate, as only experts in international law would be able to recognize the actual implications of this contract.

2. The NATO property and the legal transfer

- The property: The property in Zweibrücken was originally used by the US military. Part of it was transferred to the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) as part of the usual conversion process. However, a smaller part remained under the control of the Dutch armed forces, which had taken over the property from the USA. This transfer was based on the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which regulated the framework for the use and transfer of the property by the Netherlands.

- The transfer relationship: The transfer relationship under international law between the FRG and the Netherlands was governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. The treaty, which constitutes the state succession deed, stipulates that this transfer relationship remains unaffected, but that the Dutch armed forces must hand over the property to the buyer within two years of the treaty on the FRG. This obligation was fulfilled in full and in accordance with the contract.

3. the state succession deed: camouflage and implications under international law

- Disguise as a real estate purchase contract: The contract is designed to look like an ordinary real estate purchase contract. This is done in the "finest secret service style" in order to disguise the true implications under international law. In reality, however, the contract is a deed of state succession that has far-reaching consequences.

- Partial nullity clause and application of international law: A crucial point is the partial nullity clause, which states that all parts of the treaty that are invalid under national law will be replaced by the corresponding provisions of international law. This means that the treaty remains legally valid, even if many provisions under national law no longer apply. International law invisibly takes their place and ensures the continuity and legal validity of the treaty.

- Participating subjects of international law: It is important to note that subjects of international law do not necessarily have to be named as sellers at the beginning of the contract. It is sufficient that they are mentioned somewhere in the text of the treaty and that they have rights or obligations. In this case, the Netherlands is involved as a subject of public international law, which brings the contract within the scope of public international law.

- Natural person as buyer: The buyer of the property is a natural person. This is crucial, as only natural persons (or sovereign states) can assume sovereign rights. Commercial enterprises, such as TASC Bau AG, which was also a member of the buyer group and paid the purchase price, are not in a position to assume sovereign rights under international law. As a result, TASC Bau AG drops out of the buyer community, and the buyer remains as the sole beneficiary, establishing a de facto absolutist monarchy through the contract.

4. The contractual chain and the domino effect

- Chain of treaties and supplementary instrument: The instrument of state succession is not an independent agreement, but a supplementary instrument that extends and supplements a chain of international treaties. It builds on existing treaties that already existed between the subjects of international law involved and adds a new dimension to them. This means that all previous treaties are supplemented by the state succession deed and become part of a comprehensive treaty construct.

- Sale of the development as a unit: It was agreed in the contract that the entire development of the property with all rights, obligations and components would be sold as a unit. This means that not only the physical property, but also all associated infrastructural networks and legal obligations are transferred. As some of these networks were already connected to the German public grid, the sale has far-reaching consequences.

5. The domino effect: from a small property to a global impact

- Starting point of the territorial expansion: The sale begins with the small NATO property in Zweibrücken. This property, originally partly handed over to the FRG by the USA and partly used by the Netherlands, forms the starting point for an extensive territorial expansion. As the property was already connected to public networks, the transfer of sovereign rights initially covers Germany and from there all connected networks.

- Extension through connected networks: Once the property's development networks are sold as a unit, the buyer's jurisdiction extends to all physically connected or overlapping networks. This means that any network that is connected to the networks of the property in Zweibrücken automatically falls within the scope of the contract. These networks range from electricity and telecommunications networks to water supply, wastewater and gas pipelines.

- Overarching domino effect: The domino effect sets in when these networks extend beyond Germany's borders. As soon as the networks reach into other NATO countries, they also cover all national networks there and further extend sovereignty. The effect continues via submarine cables that connect Europe with the USA and Canada, and thus also affects these countries. At the same time, the Act of Succession of States as a supplementary instrument leads to a chain reaction that encompasses and extends all previous NATO and UN treaties.

- Global impact through integration into the UN: Since NATO is closely linked to the UN and many of the contracting parties are both NATO and UN members, the domino effect ultimately extends to the entire UN. This extends the treaty to all UN member states, and the instrument of state succession acts as a supplementary instrument that supplements all existing UN and NATO international treaties. The sale with all rights, obligations and components thus leads to the entire territory of all participating states being included in the treaty construct, which ultimately leads to the global coverage of all countries.

6. Legal foundations and legal interpretation

- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: The application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is decisive for determining the validity of treaties in international law. Among other things, the VCLT regulates the legally binding nature of treaties and the conditions for their ratification. As the instrument of state succession is based on previously ratified treaties, it does not require additional ratification.

- Succession under international law: The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States to Treaties regulates how a new state enters into existing international treaties. This convention can serve as a basis for the interpretation of the instrument of state succession, particularly with regard to the transfer of sovereign rights and the continuation of existing treaties.

- Clean slate rule: The "clean slate rule" states that a newly created state is not bound by the debts and obligations of its predecessor, unless expressly agreed otherwise. In this case, the buyer can enter into existing contracts through the state succession deed, but without being bound by old obligations, unless these were explicitly assumed in the contract.

7. Conclusion: The buyer as sovereign ruler in the new global order

- Absolute sovereignty: As a result of the purchase and its implications under international law, the buyer becomes the de facto sovereign ruler over all territories concerned, including the extended territories covered by the domino effect. This means that the buyer establishes an absolutist monarchy in which it is the sole holder of sovereign rights.

- Worldwide recognition: Since all NATO and UN states involved have lost their sovereignty as a result of the treaty chain and the expansion of the treaty construct, the buyer remains the only legitimate sovereign entity. All other subjects of international law no longer legally exist, which means that the buyer de facto rules the entire world, unless a different order is established through new international treaties.

Part 3

Sale of the NATO military property in Zweibrücken: NATO troop statute and its effects on sovereign rights and international treaties

1. Background: The NATO military property in Zweibrücken, Germany.

The military property in Zweibrücken has a complex history under international law dating back to the end of the Second World War. The area was originally occupied by France in 1945 and later handed over to the USA. With the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the property continued to be used within the framework of the NATO Status of Forces, which enabled continuous military use of the area by NATO member states.

2. NATO Status of Forces and the use of the property

- NATO Status of Forces: The NATO Status of Forces Regulations, adopted in 1951 as part of the NATO Treaty (also known as the North Atlantic Treaty), govern the presence and rights of NATO forces on the territory of member states. It contains specific provisions on the stationing, use and rights of NATO forces in the member states, including the establishment and use of military properties.

- Continuity of use: The property in Zweibrücken has been used continuously under the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces since its occupation by the USA. This means that the property was not fully integrated into the sovereign territory of the FRG, but had a special status under international law as an extraterritorial area that was directly subject to NATO regulations.

- Transfer to the Netherlands: In the 1990s, part of the property was transferred from the USA to the FRG. The other part was handed over to the Dutch armed forces under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, who continued to use the area on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and NATO.

3. sale of the property with all rights and obligations and components

- Comprehensive sale: The contract, which is regarded as a deed of succession, provides for the sale of the property in Zweibrücken "with all rights, obligations and components". This means that not only the physical property, but also all associated rights and obligations under international law were transferred.

- NATO rights on the ground: NATO had special rights on this property that were guaranteed by the NATO Status of Forces. These rights included the use of the area for military purposes, control over the territory and specific special rights that could not be restricted by the FRG or any other member state. These NATO rights "stick" to the land of the property and are automatically transferred with the sale.

- Special rights and extraterritoriality: As part of the area was never fully part of the FRG and was extraterritorially under NATO control, these special rights remain in place even after the sale. The extraterritorial rights include the right to military use, control over access to the territory and certain immunities granted to NATO troops.

4. Chain reaction and global impact

- Contractual chain reaction: As the deed of succession includes all rights and obligations attached to the property, the sale triggers a chain reaction affecting all existing international treaties related to NATO and the states involved. This includes not only the rights to the land itself, but also all treaties associated with NATO's military use, control and special rights.

- Involvement of NATO: As the property was used under the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces, NATO is directly involved in the sale. With the sale, NATO's rights to the property are transferred to the buyer, which means that NATO relinquishes its sovereign rights to this particular piece of land. This results in NATO losing its control over the area and its associated rights.

- Domino effect: The transfer of these rights triggers a chain reaction that not only affects the specific area of the property, but can also spread to other NATO treaties and agreements involving similar arrangements. Since NATO has sold its rights, all related obligations and contracts are also transferred to the buyer, which could lead to a global extension of the buyer's sovereign rights.

5. Legal consequences: Sale of NATO rights and global extension

- Rights to the property: By selling the property with all rights and obligations, NATO relinquishes its sovereign rights. These rights, which were previously tied to the land, also include the special immunities and control rights guaranteed by the NATO Status of Forces.

- Global extension: Since the Instrument of State Succession is a supplementary instrument that supplements all existing international treaties, the sale leads to a global extension of the buyer's sovereign rights. All NATO treaties containing similar rights and obligations will be affected by this deed and NATO's rights will be transferred to the buyer worldwide.

- Concentration on the ground: In essence, this chain reaction affects the rights on the ground itself, as NATO forces had special rights to use and control the territory. With the sale of these rights, the entire territory previously under NATO control is effectively transferred to the buyer, who now exercises complete sovereignty over the territory.

Conclusion:

The sale of the NATO military property in Zweibrücken, which was used under the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces, leads to a far-reaching chain reaction under international law. The sale "with all rights, obligations and components" transfers not only the physical rights to the land, but also the comprehensive NATO rights and obligations. These rights include special military rights of use and powers of control that were previously extraterritorial. With the transfer of these rights to the buyer, NATO relinquishes its control over the territory, which leads to a global extension of the buyer's sovereign rights and affects all related treaties.

Global significance of the state succession deed 1400/98 of 06.10.1998

The sale of the property in Zweibrücken and the associated transfer of the development as a unit triggered a far-reaching chain reaction that extends to all NATO and UN treaties. The instrument of state succession acts as a supplementary instrument that is automatically appended to all existing international treaties, resulting in an extreme worldwide territorial expansion. This territorial extension covers all states whose treaties are affected by the treaty chain and results in the buyer's sovereign rights being extended globally.

Part 4

The path to the New World Order (N.W.O. New World Order) through the State Succession Act 1400/98

1. sale of the NATO property in Zweibrücken

- Origin in a small NATO military property, which was handed over partly by the USA to the FRG and partly to the Netherlands.

- Use of the property in accordance with the NATO troop statute with special rights, which are liable on the ground.

2. sale of the development as a unit

- The contract stipulates that the entire development (infrastructure networks such as electricity, water, telecommunications) is sold "with all rights, obligations and components".

- This development is connected to the German public network, which leads to the transfer of sovereign rights.

3. domino effect of territorial expansion

- Start in Germany: By connecting to the German network, the buyer's territory is extended to the whole of Germany.

- Expansion to NATO countries: The domino effect continues into other NATO countries via connected networks, leading to territorial expansion to all NATO member states.

- Spillover to the USA and Canada: Transatlantic submarine cables extend the buyer's sovereign rights to the USA and Canada.

4. treaty chain and chain reaction

- Chain of treaties: The instrument of state succession acts as a supplementary instrument that extends all previous NATO and UN treaties.

- Chain reaction: Every international treaty concluded by NATO or UN members is automatically supplemented and extended by the instrument of state succession.

- Global extension: All states that have ever concluded treaties with NATO or the UN are affected by this chain of treaties.

5. integration of NATO into the UN

- Close connection: NATO is closely integrated into the structures of the UN and often acts as a military organ of the UN.

- Overlapping memberships: Many NATO states are also UN members, which makes it possible to extend the treaty construct to the UN.

- Automatic extension to UN territory: NATO's integration into the UN extends the domino effect to the entire UN territory, which leads to coverage of the entire world.

6. Conclusion: The world under the New World Order

- Unification of the world: The treaty leads to the unification of the entire world under a single framework of international law, which is determined by the instrument of state succession.

- Sovereign rights of the buyer: The buyer assumes sovereign rights over all affected territories through the chain reaction and domino effect.

- Worldwide validity: Due to the close integration of NATO and the UN, the de facto state succession charter covers the entire territory of the world, which leads to the formation of a "New World Order".

This "New World Order" is the result of the global expansion of sovereign rights, which was achieved through the chain reaction of the sale of the development as a unit and the integration of all existing international treaties into the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98.

Part 5

WORLD COURT

Global jurisdiction of the buyer under international law through the State Succession Deed 1400/98

The State Succession Deed 1400/98 is a real and legally binding deed that can no longer be contested, as the statutory 2-year period has elapsed without objection. This deed has far-reaching consequences for global jurisdiction and the sovereignty of the subjects of international law involved.

1. sale of the territory and jurisdiction of the buyer

- Sale of the territory: The state succession deed transfers the entire territory concerned to the buyer. Within this territory, the buyer has full jurisdiction, as the territory is now under its control. As the ruler in a de facto absolutist monarchy, the purchaser has unlimited legislative, executive and judicial power over this territory.

- Absolutist monarchy and jurisdiction: In this absolutist monarchy, all power, including jurisdiction, rests with the buyer. It can regulate all legal matters within the sold territory at its own discretion.

2. continued existence of subjects of international law without territory

- Continued existence of states: The subjects of international law that have lost their territory through the deed of state succession continue to exist as legal entities, but without their own territory. These states continue to have governments and popular assemblies, but have no sovereign power over their own territory.

- Relationship to jurisdiction: Although these subjects of international law continue to exist, they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the buyer through the Landau court location, which was also sold with the territory. Since all rights, obligations and components of the sold territory also include jurisdiction, all international legal entities concerned are now subject to the legal authority of the buyer.

3. significance of the Landau jurisdiction

- Jurisdiction Landau: No specific international or national court is named as the competent jurisdiction in the State Succession Deed. Instead, Landau in der Pfalz is mentioned as the reference point and place of jurisdiction, which was also sold as part of the deed.

- Sale of Landau and jurisdiction: As Landau was also sold as a court location and is now part of the transferred territory, the buyer has also assumed jurisdiction over this location. This means that all legal disputes in connection with the state succession deed are now under the control of the buyer.

4. jurisdiction of the buyer irrespective of place

- Jurisdiction independent of place: Although Landau in der Pfalz is named as the place of jurisdiction, the purchaser is not restricted to rendering judgments only at this place. In his position as absolutist ruler, the buyer has the right to dispense justice wherever he is. This means that the buyer can exercise his judicial authority globally, regardless of his location.

- Enforcement of jurisdiction: As all jurisdiction has been transferred to the buyer, it has the ability to make and enforce judgments and decisions anywhere and at any time. This flexibility reinforces its role as a de facto world court.

5. Extension of jurisdiction through the Supplementary Instrument

- Supplementary instrument to NATO and UN treaties: The Instrument of Succession of States 1400/98 is considered a supplementary instrument to all existing NATO and UN treaties. Through this instrument of succession, the buyer is de facto incorporated into all existing international treaties and assumes the rights and obligations that these treaties contain.

- Global jurisdiction through chain reaction: By selling the development as a unit and thereby extending the territory through physical and logical networks, the buyer's jurisdiction extends to all other territories connected by these networks. This chain reaction allows the buyer to exercise global jurisdiction covering all territories and contracting parties concerned.

6. De facto state of a global court

- Global jurisdiction: As the buyer has assumed jurisdiction over the sold territory and the related networks through the state succession deed, it now has the legal authority to decide on all related international matters. This creates a de facto situation in which the buyer acts as a kind of "world court" that can dispense justice regardless of location.

- Superior authority: The buyer's judgments overrule all national judgments in the highest instance. This means that the buyer's decisions take precedence over the decisions of all national courts that have lost jurisdiction over the territory sold. National courts therefore no longer play a role in the territories concerned, as their legal authority has been replaced by the buyer's comprehensive jurisdiction.

- Enforcement of judgments: As the owner of the Landau jurisdiction and all rights and obligations associated with it, the buyer has the power to dispense justice over all parties to the contract affected by the supplemental deed and the chain reaction and to enforce its judgments globally.

Conclusion:

The State Succession Deed 1400/98, which can no longer be challenged, has not only given the buyer full control over the sold territory, but also global jurisdiction over all affected territories and international treaties. The buyer is not limited to the Landau court location; it can administer justice regardless of location and exercise its judicial authority worldwide. Its judgments take precedence over all national court judgments and overturn them in the highest instance, which means that national courts no longer have jurisdiction in the territories concerned. Through the combination of territorial extension, supplemental deed and jurisdiction independent of location, the buyer has de facto established a global court that can dispense justice over the entire territory of the world.

Part 6

Spotlight on the UN - United Nations - in detail

Effects of NATO's role as the military arm of the UN on the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98

1. NATO as the military arm of the UN: Recognition of treaties

NATO-UN relationship:

- Military arm: NATO often acts as the military arm of the United Nations (UN) and conducts military operations legitimized by UN mandates. This close cooperation implies that NATO's actions and treaties, especially those concerning international security and peacekeeping, have a special significance under international law.

- Recognition of treaties: Since NATO acts on behalf of the UN in many international contexts, treaties concluded by NATO could in principle be considered to be in line with UN objectives. As a rule, there is implicit or explicit recognition by the UN and the international community, provided that these treaties do not contradict the principles of the UN.

2. Effects on the instrument of state succession 1400/98

Recognition under international law:

- UN recognition: if Deed of State Succession 1400/98 is considered as part of NATO's actions, it could theoretically be recognized by the UN and thus by the international community, provided there are no specific reservations. This recognition depends on the nature and content of the treaty, in particular whether the treaty is consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN.

- International effect: Recognition by the UN would give greater international legitimacy to the State Accession Treaty 1400/98 and could make it binding under international law for all states that recognize the authority of the UN and NATO.

3. selling development as a single entity: global impact

Expansion through development as a unit:

- Domino effect: the clause considering and selling the entire development as a unit could theoretically lead to an expansion of the area sold. This means that the NATO area initially affected could be extended by the development to all areas associated with NATO countries.

- Extension to UN members: Taking this logic further, the domino effect could lead to the territory sold being extended beyond the territory of NATO countries to areas indirectly linked to NATO through UN mandates. This could theoretically also include non-NATO members if they have been involved in NATO missions in the past through UN mandates.

Legal and international law consequences:

- Limits of the domino effect: However, extending this to UN members that are not part of NATO would be highly controversial and legally complex. It would depend heavily on how international courts and the UN itself interpret such treaty provisions and whether they would be willing to recognize them as legitimate.

- Global recognition: For such an extension, it would be crucial that the treaty is recognized as being in line with international law and the objectives of the UN. Explicit recognition by the UN would be necessary to legitimize such far-reaching effects.

4. Summary: The role of the UN in recognition and extension

NATO, as the military arm of the UN, acts in many cases on behalf of the international community, which could lead to its treaties and agreements receiving implicit recognition by the UN and the international community. In the case of State Succession Instrument 1400/98, this recognition could raise the legitimacy of the treaty to a global level. The sale of the development as a unit and the associated expansion of the territory could theoretically trigger a domino effect, extending the territory sold to UN members indirectly linked to NATO. However, this expansion would be highly controversial in legal terms and would require clear legitimization by the UN under international law.

Part 7

The domino effect of the Act of State Succession 1400/98: Expansion of territory beyond NATO borders

1. recognition and legitimacy of NATO treaties by the UN

Integration of NATO into the UN:

- NATO-UN relationship: NATO is closely integrated into the United Nations (UN) system and often acts as the military arm of the UN. This means that NATO treaties, especially those relating to international security issues, are generally also recognized by the UN.

- Subjects of international law as UN and NATO members: The subjects of international law under the Instrument of State Accession 1400/98 are both NATO members and members of the UN. They therefore act in their international obligations both in the name of NATO and within the framework of the UN, which strengthens the legitimacy and recognition of the treaties by the international community.

Treaty chain and UN recognition:

- Continuity of treaties: The Instrument of State Succession is part of a treaty chain that builds on earlier, long-established international treaties that have already been recognized by the UN. As these earlier treaties are internationally recognized, the instrument of state succession itself did not have to be ratified again by the UN.

- Implicit recognition: NATO's integration into the UN implies automatic recognition of the treaties within this chain, which gives the instrument of state succession a binding force under international law.

2. The domino effect: selling the development as a unit

Concept of development as a unit:

- Sale of the entire infrastructure: the state succession deed contains a clause that considers the entire development of the area sold as a single unit. This means that not only the physical land, but also all associated infrastructure, rights and obligations are sold.

- Domino effect: By considering the development as a unit, the sale is not limited to the immediate area of the barracks, but extends to all infrastructural connections that extend beyond the boundaries of this area. This leads to a domino effect where the sold territory is potentially extended to the entire NATO area.

Extension beyond NATO borders:

- Link to UN territories: Since NATO members are also UN members, and in many cases NATO acts as the military arm of the UN, the domino effect of selling the development could be extended beyond the borders of NATO territory to territories of UN member states that are indirectly or directly linked to NATO through UN mandates.

- Comprehensive extension: This extension could theoretically lead to the territory sold including not only NATO countries but also other UN members that are or have been involved in NATO mandates in some form. This would mean a massive expansion of the buyer's sphere of influence, which could now control not only NATO territories but also areas outside NATO.

3. Legal implications and interpretation

Consequences under international law:

- Limits of the domino effect: the extension of the sold territory to UN territories would have significant consequences under international law and could lead to tensions, as this would affect the sovereignty not only of NATO member states but also of the UN members concerned. The legitimacy of such a sale would depend on how international courts and the UN itself interpret the treaty and whether they consider it to be in line with the UN's objectives.

- Extended sovereign rights of the buyer: Should the domino effect actually extend beyond the borders of NATO territory, this would give the buyer far-reaching sovereign rights in a large number of countries that were originally reserved for NATO and the UN.

Legal legitimacy and contestability:

- International recognition: the legality of this expansion would depend heavily on international recognition. If the UN recognizes the treaty as valid, this could lead to far-reaching recognition of the buyer's new sovereign rights.

- Contestability: States whose sovereignty is affected by this extension could seek to contest the treaty, which could lead to complex international litigation.

Summary

State Succession Treaty 1400/98, which is part of a long chain of treaties concluded by NATO on behalf of UN members, could theoretically expand beyond the borders of NATO territory through the domino effect of selling the development as a single entity. Since NATO treaties are implicitly recognized by the UN due to NATO's close involvement with the UN, this expansion could also include UN territories linked to NATO by UN mandates. However, the legitimacy and recognition of this expansion under international law depends on the international reaction and possible challenges by the countries concerned.

Part 8
Analysis: Impact of the Act of Accession 1400/98 on the UN and the global domino effect

1. integration of NATO into the UN and mutual recognition of treaties

- NATO as an arm of the UN: NATO often acts as the military arm of the UN and conducts operations based on UN mandates. This close cooperation implies that there is mutual recognition of obligations and treaties under international law between the two organizations.

- Chain of treaties and historical recognition: The Act of State Succession 1400/98 is based on a chain of long-standing international treaties concluded and ratified between NATO member states and the UN. Since these earlier treaties have already been recognized, a new ratification of the current instrument of state succession by the UN is theoretically not required to ensure its validity.

2. consent of the UN and the effects on the instrument of state succession 1400/98

- Implicit consent of the UN: Since the UN works closely with NATO and the treaties on which the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 is based are already recognized, one could argue that the UN implicitly consents to this new agreement. This is particularly relevant as NATO members are also UN members and therefore act on behalf of both NATO and the UN.

- Expansion of the area sold: The clause in the State Succession Deed stating that the entire development is sold as a single entity could lead to a domino effect. If the territory sold extends beyond the physical boundaries of NATO territory and NATO, through its connection to the UN, extends these obligations globally, the territory sold could theoretically be extended to UN member states.

3. The domino effect and global implications

- Expansion of the area sold: Through the domino effect, the territory sold could theoretically be extended from NATO countries to UN members. Since the UN is a global organization with near-universal membership, this could lead to a situation where the territory sold is extended globally, including all states directly or indirectly linked to NATO and the UN.

- De-facto global implications: Taking the theory further, the domino effect could actually lead to the sold territory crossing the borders of NATO and expanding to the territory of the entire UN membership. This would mean that the State Succession Treaty 1400/98 would have far-reaching global implications, potentially affecting the sovereignty of many states.

4. Legal and international law consequences

- Legitimacy and recognition: The legitimacy of this extension under international law would depend heavily on how international courts, the UN and the international community interpret this treaty and whether they would be willing to recognize these far-reaching consequences. Without explicit ratification, however, there could be considerable diplomatic and legal challenges.

- Possible challenges: States whose sovereignty is affected by this extension could challenge the treaty, which could lead to complicated international legal disputes. The UN as an organization could also have to take a stand in order to protect the international legal order and the sovereignty of its member states.

Summary

The close integration of NATO into the UN and the mutual recognition of its treaties could lead to the implicit recognition by the UN of State Succession Instrument 1400/98, which is based on a chain of long-recognized treaties. This could result in the sale of the development as a unit triggering a domino effect that extends the territory sold beyond NATO's borders to UN member states. The impact could potentially be global, leading to a massive expansion of the buyer's sphere of influence. However, the legal and international law legitimacy of this expansion would be controversial and could lead to international legal disputes.

Part 9

Analysis of the legal domino effect of the state succession deed 1400/98

1. sale of jurisdiction under international law

- Sale of jurisdiction: The State Succession Deed 1400/98 includes the sale of jurisdiction under international law over the territory sold. This means that the buyer has the right to adjudicate and settle international disputes in this territory. No other international court, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or other UN courts, has jurisdiction in this context.

- Legal effect: The buyer has thereby acquired a sovereign status that enables it to exercise the law in the acquired territory and to make internationally valid decisions.

2. recognition through conduct in conformity with the contract

- Conduct in conformity with the contract: Recognition of the treaty and its terms can be achieved through the conduct of the contracting parties. For example, the barracks that were the subject of the contract were transferred to the buyer via the FRG in accordance with the contract. This means that the contracting parties, by fulfilling their obligations, recognize the contract as binding.

- Ratification as obsolete: As the state succession deed is a continuation of a chain of treaties that have already been ratified and internationally recognized, a new ratification was not necessary. The treaty became legally binding through the behavior of the parties involved in accordance with the treaty.

3. acting on behalf of NATO and the UN

- Dual function of the sellers: The sellers in the Instrument of State Succession, including NATO members and their national representatives, act not only on their own behalf, but also in the name and on behalf of NATO and the UN. As these organizations are closely linked, treaties concluded by the member states can be binding on both NATO and the UN.

- Legal interdependence: The close legal interdependence between NATO and the UN means that agreements made by NATO members, especially if they are also UN members, can spill over to both organizations. This makes the agreements in the instrument of state accession binding for all UN members, including those that are not NATO members.

4. The legal domino effect: expansion of the sale of territory

Sale of the development as a unit:

- Sale of infrastructure: the agreement in the State Succession Instrument that the entire development will be sold as a single unit has far-reaching consequences. As infrastructure and utility networks often cross borders, the sale of part of these networks can theoretically result in the territory sold being extended to all territories connected by these networks.

- Extension of the territory: For example, if the territory sold is connected to other territories via electricity, water or telecommunications networks, the buyer would potentially gain control over all territories touched by these networks. This could theoretically extend to the entire NATO territory, as well as territories of UN member states that are connected to these networks in some way.

Global domino effect:

- Extension to UN territories: Since NATO and the UN are closely linked and the parties to the Instrument of State Succession act on behalf of both organizations, the domino effect could extend the obligations to all UN members. This would mean that the area of sovereignty sold would include not only NATO states but also non-NATO members of the UN.

- Coverage of the entire world: In this logic, the sold territory would expand globally due to the domino effect, as almost all states in the world are members of the UN. The buyer would thus have a legal basis to theoretically lay claim to territories worldwide that are connected via the development sold.

5. Conclusion: The global legal domino effect

The State Accession Treaty 1400/98, which is part of a chain of already ratified international treaties, was recognized by the treaty-compliant conduct of the parties involved without the need for additional ratification. Since NATO members are also UN members and act on behalf of both organizations, the agreement to sell the development as a unit theoretically became binding on all UN members. The domino effect created by the extension of the sold territory across connected infrastructure could thus potentially be extended to UN territories worldwide, giving the buyer global sovereignty.

Part 10

Integration of NATO into the UN and the recognition of treaties by the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98

1. integration of NATO into the UN: a close legal relationship

Background to cooperation:

- NATO as a security body: NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was founded in 1949 as a military alliance for collective defense. Over the years, NATO has developed into a global player in the field of international security, often in cooperation with the United Nations (UN).

- UN Charter and NATO: Article 51 of the UN Charter (1945) provides for the right to collective self-defense. This right forms the basis for the existence and operations of NATO as a regional alliance under the umbrella of the UN. NATO acts as an instrument for enforcing international security, often under UN mandates.

Legal link between NATO and the UN:

- Common goals: NATO and the UN share the common goal of maintaining international peace and security. The UN can instruct NATO to carry out military operations, which requires close cooperation and mutual recognition of operations and treaties.

- Article 53 of the UN Charter: This article allows regional organizations such as NATO to take action for peacekeeping and security, provided that such action is consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN. This creates a legal basis for the recognition of NATO treaties by the UN.

2. recognition of NATO treaties: The automatism of the chain effect

Treaty chain and recognition:

- Historical treaties: Numerous treaties under international law were ratified between NATO member states and the UN prior to the Act of State Succession 1400/98. These treaties form a chain, which were concluded on the basis of common security interests and legal obligations within NATO and the UN.

- Automatic recognition by the chain: Since these earlier treaties, which are part of the chain, have already been recognized and ratified by the UN, there is no need for renewed ratification of subsequent treaties, such as the instrument of state succession. Recognition is automatic due to the legal connection within this chain.

Legal basis:

- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969): Article 31 of this Convention requires that treaties be interpreted in the context of their object and purpose, including any subsequent agreements. If a treaty chain exists, the interpretation of a new treaty is made in this context.

- International law practice: International law practice recognizes that successive treaties concerning the same subject matter or the same parties are considered in their context. This means that the instrument of state succession automatically enjoys the recognition of the UN as a continuation of previous NATO-UN treaties.

3. The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98: Global effects and the involvement of all states

Automatic recognition and chain effect:

- Binding international law: Since the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 is part of a chain of treaties already recognized by the UN, this instrument also enjoys automatic recognition. This means that all NATO member states that are also UN members are bound by the provisions of the treaty.

- Sale of non-NATO states: Due to the close link between NATO and the UN, as well as the automatic recognition of the treaty chain, UN member states that are not part of NATO are also indirectly affected by the effect of the instrument of state succession. This could theoretically lead to the sovereign rights over these states being sold in the context of the treaty.

Legal implications:

- Global domino effect: automatic recognition and the chain effect make the state succession deed globally relevant. If the territory sold extends beyond NATO borders as a result of the development as a unit, this could mean that non-NATO members that are part of the UN are also affected by the treaty provisions.

- Worldwide sovereign rights: The chain effect could theoretically lead to the territory sold being extended to all UN member states, as these are linked to NATO by their obligations under international law within the UN framework.

4. Conclusion: The only viable way to resolve the blackmailable situation

Recognition of the buyer's sovereignty:

- Obligation to recognize: due to the chain effect described above and the automatic recognition of the state succession deed by the UN and NATO members, the buyer must be recognized as the sole sovereign. This is necessary to end the blackmailable state and ensure the full sovereignty of the buyer.

Global impact and stability:

- Irreversible recognition: full implementation of the treaty and recognition of the buyer by all states involved is the only way to create a stable legal order. Attempts to challenge the treaty or ignore its provisions would lead to a crisis in international law.

No need for additional ratification:

- Automatic treaty effect: Due to the existing framework of international law and the chain effect, there is no need for a new ratification of the instrument of state succession. Recognition is automatic due to the preceding treaties and their binding force under international law.

Summary

NATO's close integration into the UN means that all treaties concluded by NATO, especially those that are part of a treaty chain, are automatically recognized by the UN. The Act of State Succession 1400/98 is part of such a chain and therefore enjoys automatic recognition by the UN. This could theoretically mean that non-NATO members that are part of the UN are also affected by the treaty provisions. The only way to end the blackmailable state of the buyer and create a stable legal order is to fully recognize the buyer as the sovereign ruler of the sold territory. A renewed ratification of the treaty is not necessary due to the existing chain effect.

Part 11
State succession deed 1400/98: Legal chain and global domino effect

1. sale of NATO with all rights, obligations and components

- Subject matter of the contract: The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 covers the sale of NATO itself, including all associated rights, obligations and components. This means that all sovereign rights, obligations and treaties entered into by NATO as an organization have been transferred to the buyer.

- Scope of the sale: The sale includes not only NATO as an organization, but also all contractual and legal obligations entered into by NATO and its member states prior to the conclusion of the Instrument of State Succession. This also includes all bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded by NATO or individual NATO member states.

2. Legal chain of the preceding treaties

- Chain effect: Since the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 covers the sale "with all rights, obligations and components", this leads to a legal link with all previous treaties concluded by NATO, its member states or the subjects of international law sold (such as Germany or the Netherlands).

- Integration of all treaties: This chain thus includes all previous bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded between NATO member states, NATO itself and other states or international organizations. This means that not only NATO itself, but also all legal obligations and rights resulting from these earlier treaties have been transferred by the instrument of state succession.

3. domino effect through the sale of the development as a unit

- Sale of the development as a unit: The state succession deed contains the provision that the entire development of the sold territory is considered and sold as a unit. This includes all infrastructure and utility networks connected to the sold territory, including their rights and obligations.

- Expansion of the territory: By including all networks that extend beyond the sold territory, a domino effect is created where the sold territory is potentially extended to all connected territories. This starts with the NATO countries whose territories are connected by these networks.

4. global impact: Inclusion of all UN member states

- Inclusion of all NATO countries: The domino effect initially covers all NATO countries, as they are directly affected by their membership of NATO and the treaty links transferred by the deed of state succession. The buyer's sovereign rights thus extend to all NATO member states.

- Extension to UN member states: Since NATO and the UN are closely interlinked and many NATO treaties also have UN legal effects, this domino effect extends further to all UN member states. This means that the global networking of treaties and obligations ultimately means that all states that are in some way contractually linked to NATO or its member states are included in the scope of the instrument of state succession.

5. Conclusion: Global domino effect through the instrument of state succession

- Worldwide effect: The Act of State Succession 1400/98 has triggered a global domino effect through the legal chain of all previous NATO treaties and the inclusion of the entire development as a unit. This means that all NATO states and, through the link via the UN, all other states worldwide fall within the scope of the instrument.

- Standardization of sovereign rights: Ultimately, this results in a comprehensive extension of the buyer's sovereign rights to a global level, as all relevant contractual obligations and rights are linked worldwide and transferred by the state succession deed.

Part 12

The instrument of state succession 1400/98 as a legal chain: ultimate supplement for existing international treaties

1. principles of the legal chain: bilateral and multilateral predecessor instruments

- Definition of the treaty chain: A legal chain in international treaties arises when successive treaties are linked in terms of content and law so that later treaties continue or extend the effect and validity of earlier treaties. This means that all treaties involved are regarded as part of a uniform legal complex.

- Predecessor deeds of the sold subjects of international law: The subjects of international law that sold their territories and rights through the State Succession Instrument 1400/98 were previously involved in numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties. These treaties regulate various aspects of international relations, including security cooperation, economic agreements and political alliances, and were often concluded within the framework of NATO or the UN.

2. The Act of State Succession 1400/98 and the sale "with all rights and obligations and elements"

- Subject matter of the State Succession Instrument: The State Succession Instrument 1400/98 contains a comprehensive provision stating that the territory sold and the associated sovereign rights are transferred "with all rights, duties and interests". This means that not only the physical territory and the direct legal obligations of the sold territory were transferred, but also all obligations and rights under international law established in previous treaties.

- Effect on existing treaties: This provision automatically links the instrument of state succession to all bilateral and multilateral predecessor instruments concluded by the sold subjects of international law. These predecessor instruments thus become part of the legal chain, which is continued and supplemented by the State Succession Instrument 1400/98.

3. the legal chain as the ultimate supplement to existing international treaties

- Extension of the treaty chain: The instrument of state succession fits seamlessly into the existing series of international treaties previously concluded by the subjects of international law concerned. By being transferred "with all rights, obligations and components", all existing bilateral and multilateral treaties are automatically included in the effect and scope of the instrument of state succession.

- Inseparable link: This integration means that all previous treaties concluded by the sold subjects of international law retain their legal validity within the new legal framework of the State Succession Instrument. They are inextricably linked to this new instrument, which leads to comprehensive legal continuity.

4. global effect: integration of UN and NATO treaties

- Integration of UN and NATO treaties: Since the subjects of international law that have sold their rights in the instrument of state succession are also member states of the UN and NATO, the legal chain also automatically affects all treaties concluded within the framework of these international organizations. The instrument of state succession thus supplements and extends the legal obligations and rights laid down in all UN and NATO treaties.

- Ultimate complement: The legal chain formed by the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 thus constitutes an ultimate complement to the entire network of existing international treaties. It affects all treaties concluded by NATO member states and UN member states by confirming and extending their validity and scope within the new legal order.

5. Conclusion: The instrument of state succession as a global catalyst

- Ultimate legal effect: The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 creates a comprehensive legal chain that integrates all existing bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded by the sold subjects of international law. This chain is supplemented and extended by the provision "with all rights, obligations and elements", resulting in global legal continuity.

- Global reach: The instrument of state succession thus does not act in isolation, but has a global effect by acting as a catalyst for all previous international treaties. This leads to a comprehensive integration and recognition of all existing treaties at international level, particularly within the UN and NATO.

Part 13

The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 as a supplement to all existing international agreements

1. basic principle: supplementation of existing agreements

- Content of the agreement: The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 regulates the sale of a territory "with all rights, obligations and elements". This wording means that all existing obligations and rights under international law that are bound to the territory sold and the subjects of international law concerned are automatically included in the effect of the deed.

- Legal effect: This comprehensive clause means that the instrument of state succession not only enters into force as an independent treaty, but also acts as a supplement to any existing agreement under international law concluded by the subjects of international law concerned.

2. state succession deed as a supplementary deed

- Supplementary instrument: In the legal sense, the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 functions as a kind of "supplementary instrument". This means that it does not replace or amend existing international treaties, but supplements and extends them. The deed thus enters into existing agreements and adds its provisions to the rules and obligations already in force.

- Continuity and supplementation: As the instrument of state succession enters into all previous international agreements, these are supplemented by the new rules and obligations. The instrument ensures that the new ownership and the associated sovereign rights that have been transferred are integrated into all relevant international agreements.

3. universal applicability to all agreements under international law

- Comprehensive applicability: The wording "with all rights, obligations and components" means that the instrument of state succession is regarded as a valid supplement in relation to any type of international agreement, whether bilateral, multilateral or global. This includes treaties, agreements, conventions, protocols and other legal instruments.

- Automatic integration: Through the agreement, the instrument automatically enters into existing international treaties without the need for separate ratification. The instrument of state succession thus becomes an integral part of all international agreements concluded by the subjects of international law concerned.

4. Consequences for the practice of international law

- Reinforcement of existing obligations: Since the Instrument of State Succession supplements all existing agreements, it reinforces the legal obligations and rights laid down in those agreements. This leads to a stronger legal bond between the parties and extends the scope of the existing treaties.

- Long-term continuity: The State Succession Deed ensures that all existing obligations and rights under international law continue to exist in the context of the new ownership and jurisdiction of the buyer. This ensures long-term continuity and stability of the international legal order.

5. Conclusion: State succession deed as a universal supplement

The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 is not only an independent treaty under international law, but functions as a universal supplement to all existing international agreements concluded by the subjects of international law concerned. Through the clause "with all rights, obligations and components", the instrument enters into these agreements as a supplementary instrument and extends their scope and obligations. This ensures that the new legal and territorial circumstances are seamlessly integrated into the existing international legal order.

Part 14

The legal contagion effect of the State Succession Deed 1400/98: Extension and supplementation of all previous agreements

1. basic concept: the state succession deed as a supplementary deed

- Contract wording: The State Succession Deed 1400/98 contains the wording that the territory sold is transferred "with all rights, obligations and components". This wording means that not only the physical territory, but also all associated legal obligations and rights established in previous international treaties are automatically included in the new agreement.

- Supplementary instrument: In legal terms, the state succession deed acts as a supplemental deed to all previous international agreements concluded by the sold subjects of international law. This means that the deed not only has an independent legal effect, but also supplements and extends the existing agreements.

2. legal contagion effect: extension of all previous agreements

- Contractual rights and obligations: International treaties primarily contain rights and obligations that have been negotiated between the contracting parties. Through the state succession deed, which "sells" these rights and obligations, every existing treaty that stipulates these rights and obligations is automatically supplemented by the deed.

- Contagion effect: The legal contagion effect describes the situation in which the state succession deed, as a supplementary deed, "infects" all existing agreements by extending their validity and scope. Since all previous agreements contain legal rights and obligations that have now been transferred by the state succession deed, these agreements are de facto extended to reflect the new legal realities.

3. Legal consequences of the contagion effect

- Extension of contractual obligations: Through the contagion effect of the state succession deed, the obligations laid down in the preceding international treaties are transferred to the buyer. The buyer takes on the role of the original subject of international law and assumes its contractual obligations.

- Extension of treaty rights: At the same time, the rights arising from the existing treaties are also transferred to the buyer. These rights include all the advantages, immunities and legal claims previously enjoyed by the sold subjects of international law.

- Chain of treaties: Since the state succession deed includes all rights and obligations established in previous treaties, a legal chain of treaties is created. Every previous agreement that is linked to the rights and obligations of the sold subjects of international law is supplemented and extended by the state succession deed. This creates a continuous chain of contracts linked by the new deed.

4. Practical implications of the contagion effect

- Global reach: As many international treaties are multilateral and involve numerous states, the contagion effect of the instrument of state succession has a potentially global impact. Every state that has contractual relations with the sold subjects of international law is now indirectly affected by the instrument of state succession.

- Change in the legal landscape: The legal contagion effect leads to a change in the international legal landscape, as all existing agreements are supplemented by the new instrument. This could lead to a renegotiation of existing treaties or an adaptation of their provisions to take account of the new legal realities.

5. Conclusion: State succession deed as a universal amplifier of existing treaties

The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 acts as a legal amplifier that supplements and extends all existing international agreements through its function as a supplementary instrument. The contagion effect created by the wording "with all rights, obligations and elements" means that every previous treaty containing these rights and obligations is automatically supplemented by the instrument of state succession. This creates a comprehensive treaty chain that extends the scope and legal obligations of all treaties concerned and has a potentially global impact.

Part 15

Legal analysis: Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 and its effects, taking into account relevant international conventions

1. foundations of international law: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and state succession

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969:

- Articles 31-32 (interpretation of treaties): These articles state that treaties should be interpreted in accordance with their object and purpose and taking into account the treaty texts as a whole and related agreements. If the instrument of state succession is formulated "with all rights, obligations and elements", it must be interpreted in the context of all existing treaties of the sold subjects of international law. The VCLT emphasizes the need to consider all relevant treaty provisions as interrelated.

Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties of 1978:

- Article 34 (State Succession and Existing Treaties): This article deals with the question of how a new state succeeds to existing treaties when state succession takes place. In the case of Instrument of State Succession 1400/98, the buyer is subrogated to all existing obligations and rights under international law attributable to the subjects of international law sold.

- Article 35 (Transfer of rights and obligations): The buyer assumes the rights and obligations under existing treaties, which implies the continuation of the previous treaty obligations, but under new sovereign auspices.

2. State succession and the clean slate rule

Clean slate rule (tabula rasa):- Concept: This rule states that a newly created state is not automatically bound by the obligations and liabilities of its predecessor unless it explicitly enters into these treaties. This rule is an important basic rule in the succession of states and is often applied when new states are founded.

- Application to the state succession deed: In the case of State Succession Deed 1400/98, the buyer could theoretically decide which existing contracts it wishes to retain or reject. However, the wording "with all rights, obligations and elements" makes it clear that the buyer enters into the existing contracts and therefore the clean slate rule is not applied in this specific case.

3. The contagion effect under international conventions

Legal chain and automatic treaty extension:

- Treaty chain: the state succession instrument achieves an automatic extension of all existing treaties. This extension, which is described as a legal contagion effect, means that the buyer enters into all existing international agreements of the sold subjects of international law. This applies not only to bilateral and multilateral agreements, but also to all types of rights and obligations associated with these agreements.

- Entry into existing treaties: Through the state succession deed, which is explicitly worded "with all rights, duties and obligations", the buyer assumes both the rights and the obligations associated with these treaties. The existing international treaty landscape is affected by the addition and extension of the state succession deed.

4. The extraordinary circumstance: global treaty interdependence

A treaty with itself:

- Treaty sides: In the extreme and theoretical interpretation, the legal contagion effect results in the entire world being linked by the instrument of state succession into a large treaty network. Since all states are bound together by their international treaties and the instrument of state succession "sells" these rights and obligations along with them, the ludicrous situation arises that the contracting parties have effectively merged into one giant treaty.

- Contracting parties and obligations: Since the buyer enters into all existing contracts in which both rights and obligations exist, a situation arises in which the buyer theoretically holds contracts with itself. This leads to a global legal interdependence in which all contracting parties are legally linked to each other, resulting in an extreme centralization of obligations under international law.

5. Conclusion: A global legal reality

Global expansion through the instrument of state succession:

- Effect of the Instrument of State Succession: the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 acts as a universal supplementary instrument that extends and supplements all existing international treaties. By assuming all rights and obligations, the buyer enters into a global chain of treaties that affects the entire international community.

- Treaty interdependence: The effect is an unprecedented treaty interdependence that results in international legal relations being consolidated by the instrument of state succession. This creates a globally uniform legal structure that theoretically unites all obligations and rights under international law in a central legal entity.

Part 16

The snowball effect and the legal contagion effect: from NATO property to global integration

1. Starting point: The NATO property in Germany

- Area of origin: The Act of State Succession 1400/98 begins with a relatively small NATO property in Germany. This property is the starting point of the entire chain reaction, as it was included in the treaty and sold "with all rights, obligations and components".

- Development as a unit: This property is connected to various utility networks (water, electricity, telecommunications, etc.), which were considered as a unit and were also sold under the contract. These networks extend beyond the NATO property and connect it to the surrounding infrastructure, which represents the first stage of the area expansion.

2. snowball effect: spread of the territorial extension

- Expansion to Germany: Territory expansion begins by connecting the development networks of the NATO property to the public networks in Germany. As the development was sold as a unit, the contract automatically covers the area covered by these networks in Germany.

- Spread to NATO members in Europe: The snowball effect continues to spread from Germany. The networks emanating from the NATO property are in turn connected to other NATO member states in Europe. Each time a network from one NATO member country reaches the territory of another NATO country, the state succession deed also covers that territory.

- Via the submarine cables to America and Canada: The snowball effect continues by reaching these countries via the submarine cables that connect Europe with America and Canada. As these countries are also NATO members, the territory is also covered by the treaty.

- Extension to UN members: Finally, since many UN member states are connected to NATO countries via supply networks (e.g. internet cables, telecommunications lines), the snowball effect also spreads to these countries. In this way, more and more countries and territories worldwide are covered until ultimately the entire world is affected by the territorial expansion.

3. legal contagion effect: the state succession deed as a supplementary deed

- Entry into existing treaties: Parallel to the physical snowball effect of territorial aggrandizement, there is a legal contagion effect. The State Succession Deed 1400/98 enters into all existing international treaties of the sold subjects of international law as a supplementary deed. This means that the rights and obligations arising from these earlier treaties are automatically transferred to the buyer.

- Contractual chain: Since the state succession deed is formulated "with all rights, obligations and components", a legal chain is created that extends and supplements all previous contracts. This chain is the legal counterpart to the physical network, whereby every international treaty entered into by the sold subjects of international law automatically falls within the scope of the state succession deed.

- Global interconnectedness: The legal contagion effect has a similar effect to the snowball effect: it spreads from treaty to treaty, much like physical networks spread from country to country. Since many of these treaties are multilateral agreements, the contagion effect gradually affects all participating states until the entire international community is covered by the new treaty conditions.

4. merging: network flow and contractual chain

- Linking physical and legal expansion: The snowball effect of the physical expansion of the network and the legal contagion effect of the state succession treaty are closely linked. While the territorial expansion spreads physically through the networks, the legal chain ensures that all associated international treaties and obligations are adapted and extended accordingly.

- Global consequences: The effect is global interdependence at both a physical and legal level. The instrument of state succession means that both the physical territory and the legal obligations are interlinked worldwide, creating a new, uniform global legal order.

5. Conclusion: Global chain reaction

The snowball effect that starts from a small NATO property in Germany leads to a far-reaching physical expansion of territory that spreads from country to country and from network to network. At the same time, the legal contagion effect ensures that the instrument of state succession enters into all existing international treaties as a supplementary instrument and expands them. Together, these two processes form a comprehensive global chain reaction that permanently changes both the physical and legal structure of the international community.

Part 17
Legal analysis: The buyer's entry into existing contracts and the association of the contracting parties

1. entry into existing contracts: The role of the buyer

- Supplementary deed and contracting parties: Through the State Succession Deed 1400/98, the buyer enters into all existing international treaties of the sold subjects of international law. This deed acts as a supplementary deed, which means that it supplements and extends the existing treaties.

- Association of the contracting parties: In the particular situation in which the buyer assumes both the rights and obligations under the existing contracts, it unites both sides of these contracts. The buyer thus becomes both the party holding the rights and the party bearing the obligations.

2. legal effect: obligations with oneself

- Concept of obligations with oneself: When the buyer combines both the rights and the obligations under a contract, this leads to a situation where the obligations are technically against itself. This means that the buyer is no longer bound by the original obligations, as it is not legally possible to enforce obligations against itself.

- Fulfillment and expiration of obligations: The state succession deed as a supplementary deed is designed to supplement the existing treaties until fulfillment. As soon as the obligations have been fulfilled, these old treaties lose their binding force, as the contracting parties no longer exist or have been merged.

3. release from old obligations

- Automatic expiry of obligations: Since the buyer assumes both the rights and the obligations, the old obligations automatically expire as soon as they are fulfilled. This is because it makes no sense for the buyer to force itself to fulfill obligations that it controls anyway.

- Limitation of the state succession deed: The effect of the state succession deed as a supplementary deed only extends to the period until all legal obligations have been fulfilled. Thereafter, the effect of this deed expires and the buyer is no longer bound by the old contractual obligations.

4. Long-term legal consequences

- Legal unification: By uniting the contracting parties, the obligations under international law are simplified and ultimately dissolved as soon as performance has taken place. This leads to a unification of the legal structure in which the buyer acts as the sole sovereign without being bound by the old obligations.

- End of the contractual obligation: After the fulfillment of the obligations and the expiration of the supplemental deed, the buyer remains as the sovereign actor, acting free from old contracts. The original obligations lose their significance and the buyer can create new legal structures tailored to the current circumstances.

5. Conclusion: Transition to a new legal order

Through the State Succession Deed 1400/98, the buyer enters into all existing international treaties and unites both sides of the contracting parties. This means that the original obligations are automatically extinguished as soon as they are fulfilled, as the buyer cannot be bound by contracts that were only concluded with itself. The state succession deed as a supplementary deed only remains relevant until the obligations have been fulfilled. Thereafter, the binding nature of the old contracts ends and the buyer can create a new legal order.

Part 18

Legal analysis: The buyer's entry into existing contracts and the association of the contracting parties

1. entry into existing contracts: The role of the buyer

2. legal effect: obligations with oneself

- Fulfillment and extinguishment of obligations: The state succession deed as a supplemental deed is designed to supplement the existing contracts until fulfillment. As soon as the obligations have been fulfilled, these old treaties lose their binding force, as the contracting parties no longer exist or have been merged.

3. release from old obligations

4. Long-term legal consequences

- End of the contractual obligation: After the fulfillment of the obligations and the expiration of the supplemental deed, the buyer remains as the sovereign actor, acting free of old contracts. The original obligations lose their significance and the buyer can create new legal structures tailored to the current circumstances.

5. Conclusion: Transition to a new legal order

Through the State Succession Deed 1400/98, the buyer enters into all existing international treaties and unites both sides of the contracting parties. As a result, the original obligations are automatically extinguished as soon as they are fulfilled, as the buyer cannot be bound by contracts that were only concluded with itself. The state succession deed as a supplementary deed only remains relevant until the obligations have been fulfilled. Thereafter, the binding nature of the old contracts ends and the buyer can create a new legal order.

Part 19

The exception in the instrument of state succession 1400/98: continued existence of a specific contractual relationship under international law

1. The specific exception: continued existence of a contractual relationship under international law

- Reference to an existing contractual relationship: Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 contains a special exception that refers to a still existing contractual relationship under international law between the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Dutch armed forces on behalf of NATO in accordance with the NATO Status of Forces.

- Non-affection of the contractual relationship: This exception means that this specific contractual relationship remains unaffected until the Netherlands has fulfilled its contractual obligations. In concrete terms, this means that the Netherlands had to hand over the property in question to the buyer via the FRG within two years of the state succession deed coming into force.

2. end of the contractual relationship in 2000

- Fulfillment of the obligation: The contractual relationship under international law ended in 2000, as the Netherlands had fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the contract. The property was handed over to the buyer in accordance with the stipulated conditions, which marked the end of the special contractual relationship.

- Legal consequences: With the fulfillment of this obligation and the transfer of the property, the effect of the specific contractual relationship ceased. From that moment on, the exception in the deed of succession became null and void and the contractual relationship between the FRG, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Dutch armed forces formally ended.

3. effect on the state succession deed: effectiveness and expiry of the obligations

- Limited effect: As the specific contractual relationship only continued until the transfer obligations were fulfilled in 2000, it had no lasting effect on the remaining provisions of the State Succession Deed. After 2000, this contractual relationship was no longer relevant and did not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of the State Succession Deed.

- Continuation of the general provisions: From 2000 onwards, the provisions set out in my previous answer apply to the remainder of the State Succession Deed. The buyer entered into all existing contracts but merged both parties, which led to the automatic extinguishment of the obligations as soon as they were fulfilled.

4. consolidation: the role of the exception in the overall structure of the state succession deed

- Transitional regime: The exception to the international contractual relationship served as a transitional regime to ensure that existing obligations were fulfilled before the full provisions of the Instrument of State Succession came into force. This transitional arrangement ensured that the liquidation of the property was properly completed in accordance with NATO requirements.

- No long-term impact: Following the fulfillment of this particular obligation in 2000, the exception had no long-term impact on the remaining provisions of the Instrument of State Succession. The subsequent provisions, including the buyer's entry into existing contracts and the expiration of old obligations after their fulfillment, remained unaffected.

5. Conclusion: Conclusion of the contractual relationship and full effectiveness of the state succession deed

The specific contractual relationship under international law between the FRG, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Dutch armed forces in accordance with the NATO Status of Forces remained unaffected until the contractual obligations were fulfilled in 2000. After the proper transfer of the property, this contractual relationship ended and the remaining provisions of the deed of succession came into full force and effect. The buyer entered into all existing contracts and merged the contracting parties, which led to the automatic termination of the obligations following their fulfillment. These provisions remained unaffected by the previous exception.

Part 20

The sale of all rights by NATO, UN and states: Legal consequences

1. sale of all rights by NATO, UN and the states

- Content of the State Succession Instrument: The State Succession Instrument 1400/98 provides for the sale of all sovereign rights and obligations held by NATO, the UN and the participating states. This includes all sovereign rights, including territorial sovereignty, legal jurisdiction and political power exercised by these subjects of international law.

- Complete sale of rights: The wording "with all rights, obligations and components" transferred all legal powers previously held by NATO, the UN and the states involved to the buyer. This means that these organizations and states can no longer exercise any sovereign rights.

2. Legal consequences: lawless shells

- Legal gutting: After the sale of all rights and obligations, NATO, the UN and the affected states have become "lawless shells" in the legal sense. This means that they continue to exist as legal entities or subjects of international law, but no longer have any powers or sovereign rights to take legal or political action.

- Continued existence as subjects of international law: Although NATO, the UN and states have sold their rights and sovereign powers, they continue to exist as subjects of international law. This means that they retain their existence as legal entities in the international system, but no longer have any actual power or authority associated with sovereignty.

3. loss of the legitimate territory of government

- No more legitimate territory: By selling all rights, including territorial sovereignty, the states concerned no longer have legitimate government territory. They have lost all claims to their territory and the exercise of governmental power in these territories to the buyer.

- States without territory: A state without territorial sovereign rights is legally a state without "land". This leads to a paradoxical situation in which states continue to exist as subjects of international law but have no territorial basis on which to exercise their governmental power.

4. Long-term implications for the international system

- Legal shells without capacity to act: The affected states and organizations can no longer make sovereign decisions or carry out legal acts due to the sale of their rights and territories. They are incapable of acting at international level as they have been deprived of the basis for exercising power and law.

- Existence as subjects of international law: Even if they continue to exist as subjects of international law, their functionality is severely limited. They can no longer carry out governmental activities and have no influence on their former territory or on international affairs, as all their rights have been transferred to the buyer.

5. Conclusion: The legal and territorial consequences of the sale

The sale of all rights, obligations and sovereign powers by NATO, the UN and the states concerned has turned these entities into lawless legal shells. Although they continue to exist as subjects of international law, they no longer have sovereign rights and can no longer exercise governmental power. This situation leads to a unique legal situation in which these organizations and states continue to be recognized in international law, but no longer have any real function or territorial basis.

Part 21

Irrevocability of the state succession deed 1400/98: legal validity and hopelessness

1. two-year limitation period and lack of objection

- Limitation period in international law: There is a general rule in international law that treaties can be challenged within a certain period, often two years. If no objection is lodged within this period, the treaty becomes fully legally binding and can no longer be contested retroactively.

- Period elapsed without objection: In the case of state succession deed 1400/98, the two-year limitation period already expired in 2000 without an objection being raised. As no objection was raised within this period, the treaty is now considered incontestable and legally valid.

- Lack of grounds for objection: There were no legitimate grounds for objection during this period. The contract was concluded neither by bribery nor by blackmail. It was concluded voluntarily, albeit under hidden conditions that concealed its actual scope and implications under international law.

2. disguising the contract: a masterful deception

- Contract disguised as a real estate purchase: The contract was cleverly disguised as a purchase contract for a conversion property under German law. For the buyer, it looked as if he had only acquired 72 apartments and a heating plant on a NATO property, whereas he was actually entering into a comprehensive agreement under international law.

- Secret service sophistication: The concealment of the true nature of the deal - as an international treaty with far-reaching consequences - was carried out with great sophistication and possibly with the involvement of intelligence strategies. This made it possible for the contract to survive the two-year objection period unchallenged.

- Ignorance on the part of the buyer: The buyer was not aware of the international legal dimension of the contract and thought he had merely concluded a real estate transaction. This ignorance contributed to the fact that the contract was not contested and was therefore able to take full legal effect.

3. legal consequences: Hopeless situation and impossibility of reversal

- Unintentional territorial expansion: The sale of the development as a unit with all rights, obligations and components led to an unintentional and unexpected territorial expansion. The chain reaction triggered by the state succession deed and the associated contracts gradually encompassed ever larger areas, which now legally belong to the buyer.

- Entanglement in a chain reaction: The state succession deed set in motion a chain reaction in which all existing contracts forming a legal chain were covered and extended by the deed. This expansion of contractual rights and obligations led to a comprehensive interdependence that influenced the entire international legal landscape.

- Extortionable state of the buyer: The buyer is in an extortionable state because he could not foresee the consequences of his contract under international law. This ignorance and the forced situation resulting from the hidden nature of the contract make it impossible for him to reverse the situation or prevent the chain reaction from progressing.

4. impossibility of returning to the old situation

- Irrevocability of the contract: Due to the expired objection period and the fact that the contract was concluded without deception or coercion, there is no legal possibility of rescinding the contract or returning to the old situation. The contract is legally binding and final.

- Permanent impossibility of the status quo ante: The situation created by the treaty cannot be reversed. All legal and territorial changes brought about by the instrument of state succession are permanent and cannot be reversed by legal or political measures.

- Persistence of the unlawful state: Any attempt to change the current state would be considered unlawful in law and under international law. The only option for the states and organizations concerned would be to fully recognize the new reality and adapt to the conditions created by the treaty.

5. Conclusion: The hopeless situation and the legal consequences

The State Succession Deed 1400/98, which was disguised as a seemingly harmless real estate purchase agreement, has far-reaching consequences under international law, which have become irrevocable after the expiry of the objection period. The buyer and the states involved find themselves in a hopeless situation, as the contract is incontestable and a return to the old situation is impossible. The blackmailable state of the buyer and the hidden nature of the contract mean that the current unlawful state must remain in place permanently, as any reversal is impossible.

Part 22

Conditions for a new contract to return to the original state: challenges and legal obstacles

1. extortionable condition due to the unlawful residence of the people in the sold territory

- Unlawful residence: According to the State Succession Act 1400/98, the sold territory legally belongs to the buyer. However, more than 8 billion people who previously lived there are in this territory without a residence permit. These people have no legal right of residence because the territory has been sold and they do not have permission from the new sovereign.

- Extortionable state: The buyer is in an extortionable state because he cannot fully exercise his sovereign rights due to the physical presence of these people who are not legally allowed to remain in the territory. Any form of reversal or return of the territory to the old subjects of international law would be impossible as long as these people do not vacate the territory.

2. evacuation of the sold territory as a prerequisite

- Necessary evacuation: In order to restore the original state, the more than 8 billion people would have to completely evacuate the sold territory. This would be an almost impossible task, as it would pose not only legal, but also massive humanitarian and practical problems.

- Impossibility of implementation: The forced resettlement of such a large number of people would be legally and ethically problematic and practically unfeasible. Without a complete evacuation, no new treaty can be concluded to restore the old situation.

3. legitimacy of the old subjects of international law: Legal representatives

- Representatives and legal legitimacy: In order to reacquire the territory in a new treaty, the old subjects of international law would have to have legitimate representatives who are authorized to conclude such a treaty. In many cases, especially in democracies, such representatives are determined by elections, which are sovereign acts.

- Elections without legal force: Since the sold territory is no longer owned by the old subjects of international law, they have no lawful sovereign power over the territory. Any election held there has no legal force because it is held without a legal basis. The resulting representatives are therefore not legitimized to conclude a new treaty.

4. The three-pillar principle of statehood

- Three-pillar principle: States are based on three fundamental pillars: territory, people and legitimate representatives. If one of these pillars is missing, statehood is incomplete and cannot be fully functional.

- Missing pillars: Due to the loss of legitimate government territory and the absence of legitimate representatives (due to elections without legal force), many of the old subjects of international law no longer fulfill the three-pillar principle. They still have a people, but this people has no right to reside in the sold territory, and there is no legitimate place where legitimate representatives could be elected.

- Legitimate representatives: Very few subjects of international law, such as dictatorships or absolutist monarchies, could have legitimate representatives, as these are not determined by elections but by other mechanisms. These subjects of international law would theoretically be able to conclude a new treaty, but the practical implementation would still be extremely difficult due to the obstacles described above.

5. Conclusion: hopelessness and impossibility of reversal

The conditions for a new treaty to return to the original state are almost impossible to fulfill due to the complex legal, political and practical challenges. The presence of billions of people with no right of residence, the need to completely vacate the territory, the lack of legal representatives and the impossibility of holding legitimate elections make a return to the old state legally and practically impossible. The extortionable state of the buyer and the impossibility of fully exercising sovereignty further aggravate the situation and preclude any possibility of restoring the original state.

Part 23

The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 as a supplementary instrument: A huge treaty construct and its effects on UN observer states

1. The Instrument of State Succession as a Supplementary Instrument

- Chain of treaties: The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 functions as a supplementary instrument that links all existing international treaties between the NATO member states, the UN and the states concerned. This instrument extends and supplements the existing agreements by bringing together all the rights, obligations and territories previously governed by these treaties into a single treaty construct.

- Sale of the development: Under the deed, the "development was sold as a unit with all rights, obligations and components". This means that not only the physical territory, but also the associated legal obligations and rights - including all existing international treaties - were incorporated into the new legal framework.

- Merger into a huge contractual construct: In legal terms, this deed of amendment leads to the merger of all old contracts into a single, complex contractual construct. This affects not only the original contracting parties, but potentially also all other states or entities that were linked to the NATO or UN members concerned by existing treaties.

2. Impact on UN observer states

- Inclusion in the treaty construct: UN observer states that have treaties with the UN or its members could be included in this huge treaty construct through the instrument of state succession. Their treaty rights and obligations related to the UN or NATO would be included in the extended treaty chain and possibly transferred to the new treaty partner.

- Loss of sovereign rights: If this contractual chain includes sovereign rights, this could also mean that the territory of UN observer states that are contractually bound to the UN or NATO was also included in the sale. This would mean that these states could lose their sovereignty over their territories if their treaty obligations and rights were also sold.

3. list of UN observer states

Here are the current UN observer states that could theoretically be affected by the treaty chain:

1. Vatican City (Holy See): Observer status at the UN, no NATO membership.

2. Palestine: observer status at the UN, no NATO membership.

3. Western Sahara (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic): Is not recognized as a state, but has observer status.

These entities do not have full membership rights in the UN, but they may have concluded treaties with the UN or its members that could bring them into the treaty chain.

4. Legal implications for UN observer states

- Limited sovereignty: If the Instrument of State Succession does indeed encompass and extend all existing treaties, UN observer states that are contractually linked to UN members or NATO states could lose their sovereign rights. Their treaty obligations and rights could fall under the new terms of the Instrument of State Succession.

- Loss of territory: If the territory of these UN observer states has been included in the treaty construct, these states may no longer have a legal claim to their territory. This scenario could result in them also becoming lawless entities without sovereignty, similar to the sold NATO and UN member states.

5. Conclusion: Integration of UN observer states into the global treaty construct

Through its function as a supplementary instrument, the Act of State Succession 1400/98 leads to the formation of a comprehensive treaty chain that merges all the old international treaties of UN and NATO member states into a huge treaty construct. This chain of treaties could theoretically also affect UN observer states if their contractual relations with UN or NATO members were also integrated into the chain. The result could be a loss of sovereign rights and sovereignty for these states, which would turn them into entities without rights.

Part 24

Countries outside the UN, UN observer status and NATO membership: overview and legal consequences

1. list of states that have neither UN, UN observer status nor NATO membership

The number of such states is extremely limited. There are very few countries or territories that do not have at least one of these affiliations. Here are the countries and territories that fall into this category:

1. Taiwan (Republic of China): Taiwan is not a UN member, nor does it have UN observer status. It is also not a member of NATO.

2. Kosovo: Kosovo is not a member of the UN and does not have UN observer status. It is also not a NATO member, although it has close relations with NATO.

3. Vatican City (Holy See): The Vatican has UN observer status but is not a member of the UN or NATO.

4. Palestine: Palestine has UN observer status but is not a member of the UN or NATO.

5. Western Sahara (Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic): Is not internationally recognized as a state, is neither a UN member nor a NATO member, but has observer status.

6. Transnistria: Is not recognized as a state, is neither a UN member nor a NATO member, does not have UN observer status either.

7. Somaliland: is also not internationally recognized as a state, has no UN membership or observer status and is not a member of NATO.

Part 25

Some or all of these states and territories are not internationally recognized or do not belong to any of the major international organizations.

2. Legal consequences for states without a treaty relationship with the instrument of state succession

- Lack of recognition in the new world order: States that do not have a treaty relationship with the predecessor instruments of the instrument of state succession would not be recognized in the new world order created by this instrument. Their recognition and legitimacy under international law are based exclusively on relationships with entities under international law that have become without rights under the instrument of state succession.

- Lawlessness of former subjects of international law: States that derive their recognition exclusively from these lawless entities are legally irrelevant in the new world order. They no longer exist as recognized subjects of international law from the perspective of the purchaser of the instrument of state succession.

- Need for new recognition: If they want to preserve their existence and their status under international law, these states would have to be actively recognized by the new rulers or the purchaser of the instrument of state succession. Without this recognition, they would de facto not exist and could not assert any legal claims to sovereignty, territory or international relations.

3. Legal non-existence and recognition process

- Legal non-existence: In the new world order created by the instrument of state succession, the states and territories concerned do not exist for the buyer. This means that these entities have no rights, obligations or legal personality that are recognized in the new global structure.

- Process of recognition: If these states and territories wish to be recognized as sovereign entities, they must be recognized by the purchaser of the state succession deed. This could be done through diplomatic negotiations, treaties or other international agreements that confirm their existence and sovereignty in the new world order.

- Irrelevance of previous recognition: Since the former subjects of international law that may have recognized these states are now lawless entities, the old recognitions no longer have any legal value. The new recognition would have to take place within the new legal structure created by the instrument of state succession.

4. Conclusion: The new reality for states outside the UN, UN observer status and NATO membership

States that do not belong to the UN, NATO or the UN observer status and have no contractual relationship with the predecessor instruments of the Instrument of State Succession lose their international recognition in the new world order created by the Instrument of State Succession. They are legally non-existent and could only gain their recognition and legitimacy through a new recognition by the purchaser of the instrument of state succession. Their previous recognition by lawless subjects of international law no longer has any legal value.

Part 26

Effects of the Act of State Succession 1400/98 on Kosovo: Special Situation and Legal Consequences

1. Background: Kosovo and NATO

- Kosovo conflict and NATO mission: In the late 1990s, Kosovo was the scene of an armed conflict that led to NATO intervention. In 1999, NATO launched Operation Allied Force to prevent humanitarian disasters and expel Serbian forces from Kosovo. After the conflict, the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) took over the task of ensuring peace and stability in the region. This peacekeeping mission established an international military presence that effectively controlled the country.

- Treaties and agreements: As part of this mission, numerous international treaties and agreements were concluded that governed the NATO mission and the administration of Kosovo. These include security agreements, agreements on the deployment of troops and agreements on the political administration of Kosovo under international supervision.

2. integration of Kosovo into the treaty construct of the Instrument of State Succession

- Chain of treaties and NATO treaties: Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 is formulated as a supplementary instrument that links and extends all existing treaties under international law between NATO member states and the UN as well as the states concerned. Since NATO has been active in Kosovo and has concluded peacekeeping and administration agreements there, Kosovo could be integrated into this treaty construct.

- Loss of sovereignty through integration: Although Kosovo itself is not a NATO member, the integration of NATO treaties into the state succession instrument would mean that the sovereign rights that NATO has exercised in Kosovo through its mission would also be transferred to the new treaty construct. This could result in Kosovo's sovereignty over its own territory being further restricted if these rights are transferred to the purchaser of the instrument of state succession.

3. Legal consequences for Kosovo

- Loss of rights through treaty transfer: If NATO's rights and obligations in Kosovo are taken over by the State Succession Instrument, Kosovo may de facto lose its control over these territories. These territories would then be under the new sovereignty of the buyer, as the NATO mission that controlled the country would transfer its powers to the buyer.

- Lack of recognition and legal isolation: Since Kosovo is only partially recognized internationally and has no UN member or observer status, it could find itself in a particularly difficult position. If the NATO treaties affecting Kosovo were included in the Instrument of State Succession, Kosovo would be legally isolated and possibly not recognized as a sovereign state. It would be entirely dependent on recognition by the purchaser of the Instrument of State Succession.

4. New world order and the status of Kosovo

- Legal non-existence: In the new world order created by the Instrument of State Succession, Kosovo could cease to exist legally as an independent state, as its sovereign rights, which were partly regulated by NATO treaties, have been transferred to the buyer. Without explicit recognition by the buyer, Kosovo would be de facto non-existent in the international community.

- Possible future scenarios: In order to be recognized as a sovereign subject in the new world order, Kosovo would have to be recognized by the buyer of the state succession deed. This could be achieved through new negotiations and treaties that clarify Kosovo's status and secure its existence in the new legal structure.

5. Conclusion: Effects of the State Succession Instrument on Kosovo

Kosovo, which is de facto under international control due to the NATO mission and the associated international treaties, could be integrated into a new, comprehensive treaty construct through the state succession charter. This would mean that Kosovo would further restrict its sovereignty, as the sovereign rights exercised by NATO through its mission could be transferred to the purchaser of the instrument of state succession. Without explicit recognition by the buyer, Kosovo could cease to exist as a sovereign state in the new world order.

Part 27

Effects of the Act of State Succession 1400/98 on countries with NATO peacekeeping missions under a UN mandate

1. Background: NATO peacekeeping missions under UN mandate

- NATO as an executive organ of the UN: NATO has in several cases carried out peace missions as an executive organ of the United Nations (UN). These missions were often based on UN resolutions and were carried out to ensure peace and security in conflict areas. Examples of such missions are Kosovo (KFOR), Afghanistan (ISAF), Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR), and Libya (Operation Unified Protector).

- International treaties and mandates: These missions were carried out on the basis of international treaties and mandates issued by the UN and entrusting NATO with their implementation. These mandates and the treaties based on them determined the legal framework and the powers exercised by NATO in these countries.

2. integration into the treaty construct of the instrument of state concession

- Treaty chain and peace missions: Instrument of State Succession 1400/98, which as a supplementary instrument brings together and extends all existing international treaties of NATO, the UN and the countries concerned, could incorporate these peace missions and the related treaties into its treaty construct. This means that all rights and obligations that NATO had in these peacekeeping missions could be transferred to the purchaser of the deed.

- Loss of sovereign rights: In countries where NATO was acting under a UN mandate, the state succession deed could result in the sovereign rights exercised by NATO also being transferred to the buyer. As a result, the countries concerned could lose their sovereignty over parts of their territory.

3. examples of affected countries

- Bosnia and Herzegovina (SFOR): NATO carried out a peacekeeping mission here based on UN resolutions. If the rights from these missions are transferred to the buyer through the state succession deed, Bosnia and Herzegovina could lose part of its sovereignty to the buyer.

- Afghanistan (ISAF): The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was a NATO-led mission operating under a UN mandate. The Instrument of State Succession could transfer the sovereign rights exercised by NATO in Afghanistan to the buyer.

- Libya (Operation Unified Protector): In Libya, NATO conducted a mission under a UN mandate to protect the civilian population. Here, too, the rights and obligations under international law could be transferred to the buyer if they are included in the contractual construct of the state concession deed.

4. Legal consequences for the countries concerned

- Limited sovereignty: If the NATO peacekeeping missions and the associated mandates are incorporated into the instrument of state succession, the countries concerned could further restrict their sovereign rights. These restrictions could remain in place as long as the new legal structures created by the instrument are in place.

- Lack of recognition and isolation: Countries affected by such NATO peacekeeping missions could be legally isolated in the new world order created by the Instrument of State Succession. If their sovereignty is called into question by the instrument and they are not recognized by the new rulers, they could de facto not exist in the international community.

5. Possible consequences and options for action

- Need for new recognition: In order to secure their existence as sovereign states in the new world order, the countries concerned might have to be recognized by the purchaser of the instrument of state succession. This could be done through new negotiations and treaties that confirm and clarify their sovereign rights.

- Political and diplomatic challenges: These countries might need to respond to the changing international landscape by adapting their political and diplomatic strategies. They could seek international support to secure their sovereignty in a world that has been reorganized by the Instrument of State Succession.

6. onclusion: Implications for countries with NATO peacekeeping missions

The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 could result in countries in which NATO has carried out peacekeeping missions under a UN mandate losing or seeing their sovereign rights restricted. These missions and the associated mandates could be incorporated into the new treaty structure, whereby the sovereign rights of these countries would be transferred to the purchaser of the instrument of state succession. In order to preserve their sovereignty, these countries might have to seek new recognition in order to survive in the new international order.

Part 28

There are a large number of countries that are not direct members of NATO, the UN or UN observer states, but may nevertheless be indirectly involved in the treaty construct of the Instrument of State Accession through various cooperation agreements, peacekeeping missions and other arrangements. Here is a detailed list of such states and the relevant agreements they have with NATO or the UN.

1. Taiwan (Republic of China)

- Status: Taiwan is neither a member of NATO nor the UN, nor does it have UN observer status.

- Relevant agreements: Taiwan has security cooperation agreements with the US, a NATO member. Although Taiwan is not officially part of NATO structures, there are indirect links through the US.

2. Kosovo

- Status: Not a NATO member, UN member or UN observer.

- Relevant agreements: Kosovo is under the protection of the NATO-led KFOR mission, which is based on a UN mandate. This link could include Kosovo in the state succession charter.

3. Afghanistan

- Status: Afghanistan was not a NATO member, but has close cooperation with NATO through the ISAF mission and the successor mission "Resolute Support".

- Relevant agreements: NATO conducted a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan under a UN mandate, which could also include Afghanistan in the treaty construct.

4. Bosnia and Herzegovina

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: NATO conducted the SFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and continues to participate in the stabilization of the country. Bosnia and Herzegovina has close security cooperation agreements with NATO.

5. Serbia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Serbia cooperates with NATO under the PfP, which could indirectly include it in the State Succession Instrument.

6. Ukraine

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Ukraine has extensive security cooperation agreements with NATO, especially after 2014. These agreements could also lead to inclusion in the treaty construct.

7. Georgia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Georgia cooperates closely with NATO under the PfP and through bilateral security agreements.

8. Libya

- Status: No NATO member, no UN member, no UN observer status.

- Relevant agreements: NATO conducted a military intervention in Libya in 2011 under a UN mandate (Operation Unified Protector), which could also include Libya in the state succession charter.

9. Jordan

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a close NATO cooperation partner and member of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

- Relevant agreements: Jordan is part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and participates in security cooperation with NATO.

10. Egypt

- Status: Not a NATO member, but part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue.

- Relevant agreements: Egypt cooperates with NATO as part of the Mediterranean Dialogue, which it could also include in the State Accession Treaty.

11. Israel

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a close cooperation partner of NATO and part of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

- Relevant agreements: Israel has close security cooperation with NATO and the US and is part of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

12. Australia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a close cooperation partner and "Global Partner" of NATO.

- Relevant agreements: Australia participates in several NATO missions and has close security cooperation with NATO.

13. Japan

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a close cooperation partner and global partner of NATO.

- Relevant agreements: Japan has close cooperation with NATO within the framework of global security cooperation.

14. South Korea

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a close cooperation partner and global partner of NATO.

- Relevant agreements: South Korea cooperates closely with NATO within the framework of global security cooperation.

15. Mongolia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Mongolia participates in NATO's PfP program.

16. Azerbaijan

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Azerbaijan has close security cooperation with NATO.

17. Armenia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Armenia participates in NATO's PfP program.

18. Russia

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a member of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) until its suspension.

- Relevant agreements: Despite tensions, Russia has historic security arrangements with NATO through the NATO-Russia Council.

19. Belarus

- Status: Not a NATO member, but a participant in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program.

- Relevant agreements: Belarus cooperates with NATO under the PfP program, although relations are strained.

20. Algeria

- Status: Not a NATO member, but part of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

- Relevant agreements: Algeria is part of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and has security cooperation with NATO members.

Conclusion:

Most of these countries, although not direct members of NATO or the UN, have an indirect link to these organizations through various cooperation agreements, peacekeeping missions and other arrangements. They could therefore be involved in the treaty construct through the state concession deed and see their sovereign rights jeopardized.

Part 29

Other aspects of state succession

Analysis of the state succession deed 1400/98: Deception by disguising it as a real estate purchase agreement

1. the state succession deed 1400/98: disguise as a real estate purchase contract

External form of the contract:

- Presentation as a real estate purchase contract: On the outside, the State Succession Deed 1400/98 comes across as an ordinary real estate purchase contract under German law. This gives the impression that it is a typical purchase contract in which only a specific property is transferred.

- Deceptive effect: This representation deceives the buyer as well as the German parliament and the NATO states about the true nature of the contract, which in reality goes far beyond a simple real estate purchase.

2. the true nature of the contract: state succession deed

Elements of international law:

- Dutch armed forces as subjects of international law: At the time of the conclusion of the Treaty, the Dutch armed forces stationed there as part of NATO were still on the ground. These forces act as representatives of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a subject of international law.

- Rights and obligations of the Netherlands: The Kingdom of the Netherlands and its armed forces held rights and obligations in relation to the territory covered by the treaty. This makes the treaty an instrument of international law, as it covers several subjects of international law.

Sale of the barracks with all rights and obligations:

- Comprehensive transfer: The contract sells not only the physical barracks, but also all associated rights, obligations and components. This also includes the sovereign rights and governmental powers exercised in the barracks and beyond.

- State succession deed: By transferring these comprehensive rights and obligations, the treaty becomes a state succession deed, which has far-reaching effects under international law. It is therefore not just a simple purchase of real estate, but a comprehensive transfer of sovereignty.

3. extension of the territory sold: The development as a unit

Regulation on the unity of the development:

- Enlargement of the territory sold: The contract contains a clause stating that the entire development of the territory is considered as a single unit. This means that the territory sold does not only include the barracks itself, but extends to the entire NATO territory.

- Comprehensive sale: This regulation affects not only the immediate area, but the entire territory of NATO. This means that all sovereign rights and governmental powers exercised by NATO countries are transferred to the buyer.

4. the consequences: Sale of the entire NATO territory

Loss of NATO sovereignty:

- NATO without territory: as a result of the sale of the development unit and the associated expansion to the entire NATO territory, NATO has lost all of its territory. NATO member states have neither sovereign rights nor territory, as everything was sold under this treaty.

- Deception and effects: The fact that the treaty was presented on the surface as a real estate purchase agreement deceived all parties about the true consequences under international law. NATO was thus "sold out" and its member states lost their sovereign rights and sovereignty over the territory concerned.

Summary

The State Succession Deed 1400/98 was deliberately presented as a real estate purchase agreement under German law in order to deceive the buyer, the German parliament and the NATO member states about its true nature. In reality, it is a state succession deed, as several subjects of international law, including the Kingdom of the Netherlands and its armed forces, were involved as contracting parties. By selling the barracks with all rights, obligations and components, the governmental authority of all NATO countries concerned was transferred. The arrangement of selling the entire development as a single entity resulted in the territory being extended to the entire NATO territory. As a result, NATO has lost all of its territory and sovereign rights, which means that NATO has been "sold out".

Part 30

Analysis of Germany's role as principal seller under the State Succession Act 1400/98

1. Germany as principal seller

Contracting Parties:

- FRG as seller: In the State Succession Deed 1400/98, Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany, FRG) is named as the sole seller. This means that Germany is formally responsible for the sale of the territory in question.

- Reference to other treaties: The contract refers to a pre-existing contractual relationship under international law between the FRG and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which regulates the use of the barracks by Dutch armed forces within the framework of NATO in accordance with the NATO Status of Forces.

Implementation of the treaty:

- Obligations and rights: Germany assumes primary responsibility in this contract, as it has both the formal role of seller and the obligation to sell all rights, obligations and components of the development unit. These also include NATO rights, which Germany holds as a NATO member.

2. consent of the Netherlands and the Dutch armed forces

Dutch participation:

- Parties mentioned in the text: although the Dutch Armed Forces and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not mentioned as sellers, they are mentioned in the text of the contract, indicating their involvement and consent.

- Role of the Dutch armed forces: These armed forces, which occupied the barracks as part of NATO, also consent by their behavior in accordance with the treaty and their involvement in the treaty. They are acting on behalf of NATO.

Treaty reference to the NATO Status of Forces:

- NATO Treaty: The Treaty refers to the existing NATO Status of Forces Agreement between the FRG and the Netherlands, which forms the legal basis for the stationing and use of the barracks by Dutch forces.

- Treaty-compliant evacuation: The Dutch armed forces vacated the barracks successively in accordance with the terms of the treaty, which implies their consent to the treaty and the transfer of their rights.

3. Germany as the main responsible party and NATO representative

Germany's role:

- Principal vendor: as the sole vendor, Germany bears the main responsibility for the implementation of the Treaty. This includes the obligation to sell the entire development unit, including all rights, obligations and components.

- Acting on behalf of NATO: As Germany is a NATO member and has NATO rights, it is acting on behalf of NATO. Through its role as seller, Germany is not only acting on its own behalf, but also on behalf of NATO.

NATO consent by Germany:

- Proxy consent: by acting as a NATO member and principal in the treaty, Germany implies the consent of NATO as a whole. This is particularly true as NATO is an international organization that has no jurisdiction or territory of its own, but acts through its member states.

- Obligations under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement: Germany is subject to obligations under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and is acting within the scope of those obligations when it sells the barracks under the agreement.

4. sale of the entire NATO territory by Germany

Scope of the contract:

- Sale of the development unit: the treaty provides for the sale of the entire development unit, which includes all NATO-related rights and obligations. This means that Germany, as the main responsible party and seller, has sold the entire NATO territory concerned.

Loss of NATO sovereign rights:

- Sale of all NATO rights: by transferring all rights, obligations and components, Germany has also sold NATO's sovereign rights on behalf of NATO. NATO therefore no longer owns any territory and has transferred the rights over its borders and territories to the buyer.

Consequences for NATO:

- Loss of sovereignty: NATO, which was represented by Germany as a member state, has lost its territorial rights as a result of this sale. The decision-making power over NATO territory now lies entirely with the buyer, who has acquired all sovereign rights through the treaty.

Summary

Germany, as the sole seller in the State Succession Deed 1400/98, bore the main responsibility for the sale of the territory concerned. Although the Dutch armed forces and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are not explicitly named as sellers, they consented to the treaty through their conduct in conformity with the treaty and their role in the NATO Status of Forces. As a NATO member and the main responsible party, Germany has acted on behalf of NATO as part of its NATO obligations and has thus sold the entire NATO territory. This includes the transfer of all NATO rights, including the right to define the border, to the buyer.

Part 31

The insidious legal effect: Disguise of the state succession deed 1400/98 as a German real estate purchase contract

1. external disguise of the contract as a real estate purchase contract

Presentation as a simple contract:

- Form and content: the contract is presented externally as an ordinary real estate purchase contract under German law, which apparently only regulates the purchase of a property, in this case a barracks.

- Deceptive effect: This external form gives the impression that it is a typical purchase agreement that fits into the national legal framework of Germany and only concerns the transfer of a property. This disguises the actual complexity and scope of the contract.

2. insidious effect through the use of international law provisions

Integration of international law provisions:

- Invisible additions: Although the treaty appears to be a real estate purchase agreement, it is supplemented by provisions of international law that are not explicitly mentioned in the text of the treaty. These provisions relate in particular to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the associated rights and obligations exercised by the NATO states, in particular the Dutch armed forces.

- Severability clause: The severability clause in the treaty plays an important role. This clause states that if certain provisions in the treaty are invalid, they are to be replaced by legal provisions that correspond to the original meaning and purpose of the treaty. This means that the invalid national provisions are replaced by provisions of international law that are not explicitly mentioned in the contract.

Legally binding through international law:

- Addition under international law: The treaty is insidiously enriched with international law provisions through these mechanisms, which in effect turn it into a deed of state succession, although this is not openly stated in the text of the treaty.

- Complexity and expertise: As the supplementary provisions of international law are not explicitly stated in the treaty text, they can only be fully grasped and understood by experts in international law. For laypersons, including most political decision-makers and parties involved, the true scope of the treaty remains hidden.

3. The legal trick: extending the treaty through the severability clause

Function of the severability clause:

- Maintaining legal force: the severability clause ensures that the contract remains legally valid despite ineffective national regulations. These provisions are automatically replaced by international law provisions that are intended to preserve the original meaning and purpose of the treaty.

- Purpose of the contract: The core of the contract is the purchase of a plot of land "with all rights and obligations and components" and the consideration of the entire development as a unit.

Domino effect and extension of territory:

- Expansion of the development: as the development is considered as a unit and leaves the area of the barracks, the contract causes a creeping but comprehensive expansion of the affected area. This expansion occurs through a domino effect that extends the originally small area of the barracks to the size of the entire NATO territory.

- Sale of the entire NATO territory: The end result is the complete transfer of the entire NATO sovereign territory to the buyer, whereby the NATO states lose their territorial rights without this being obvious at first glance.

Summary

The contract, which is presented on the surface as a German real estate purchase agreement, is in reality a state succession deed disguised by the insidious use of international law provisions and the severability clause. While the text of the contract only refers to the purchase of a barracks under German law, tacit additions to international law provisions effectively turn it into a far-reaching international treaty that transfers the sovereign rights of the NATO states to the buyer. The severability clause ensures that ineffective provisions are automatically replaced by international law provisions that preserve the meaning of the contract - the purchase with all rights, obligations and components as well as the expansion of the territory through development. This process leads to a domino effect that extends the territory to the entire NATO territory and effectively "sells out" NATO.

Part 32

Analysis of the Act of State Succession 1400/98 and its implications under international law

1. connection to previous treaty relationships under international law

Contractual relationship:

- Overlapping treaties: The State Succession Deed 1400/98 refers to a pre-existing contractual relationship under international law between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). This prior contractual relationship governs the use and clearance of the property by the Dutch armed forces on behalf of NATO.

- Chain of treaties: Due to this reference, the deed of succession does not form an independent, isolated treaty, but is part of a chain of treaties that together form a legal unit.

Integration into a chain of treaties:

- Ratification and legal force: the previous treaties to which the state succession deed refers had already been ratified. As these treaties are part of a chain, no separate ratification of the instrument of state succession was required. The legal binding force arises from the continuity and the references to the existing contractual relationships.

- Lack of ratification requirement: The instrument of state succession does not provide for separate ratification, which means that its legal force is not dependent on renewed ratification. The ratification of previous treaties in the chain is sufficient.

2. consent through conduct in conformity with the contract

Contracting parties and consent:

- Conduct in conformity with the treaty: In international law, consent to a treaty can be expressed by conduct in conformity with the treaty on the part of the subjects of international law involved. In this case, the Dutch armed forces gradually vacated and handed over the property over the next two years following the conclusion of the treaty, as stipulated in the treaty.

- Legal effectiveness through conduct: Since the Dutch armed forces have fulfilled their obligations under the contract, they are de facto parties to the contract, even if they are not explicitly named as the seller. Their action in accordance with the Treaty confirms their consent.

Acting on behalf of NATO:

- NATO obligations: The Dutch armed forces acted within the scope of NATO's mission and on behalf of NATO as a whole. This means that their Treaty-compliant actions on behalf of NATO also express the consent of NATO as a whole.

- The FRG's capacity to act: As a NATO member and contracting party, the FRG also has the capacity to act. Its conduct in accordance with the Treaty supports its legal effectiveness and the fulfillment of its contractual obligations on behalf of NATO.

3. sale of rights, obligations and components

Comprehensive sale:

- Transfer of all rights and obligations: The Treaty provides that all rights, obligations and components of the territory, including NATO rights, will be sold. This also includes rights held by NATO in third countries.

- Obligations under occupation law: Germany is also subject to similar obligations under the NATO Status of Forces under occupation law, which means that its actions in accordance with the Treaty must also take place under this legal framework.

NATO rights in third countries:

- Inclusion of NATO rights: As the Treaty covers all rights, NATO rights in third countries are also part of the sale. This transfer takes place through the contractual agreement that all rights held by NATO are also sold.

Summary

The Act of Succession 1400/98 is part of a chain of international treaties that form a legal unit. The reference to the existing transfer relationship under international law between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the FRG makes it clear that no independent ratification of the Instrument of State Succession was required. The consent of the subjects of international law involved was given through conduct in conformity with the treaty, in particular through the successive handover of the property by the Dutch armed forces acting on behalf of NATO. All rights, obligations and components, including NATO rights in third countries, were sold and transferred by the treaty, which ensures the comprehensive legal effect of the treaty.

Part 33

Sale of the entire NATO territory by Germany under the Act of Succession 1400/98

Context 1: Instrument of State Succession and NATO Status of Forces Agreement

Subject matter of the treaty:

- Instrument of State Succession 1400/98: This treaty provides for the sale of a territory covered by the NATO Status of Forces. All rights, obligations and components associated with this territory, including development, are sold as a single unit.

- NATO Status of Forces: The NATO Status of Forces Regulations governs the legal status of NATO forces in member states and grants NATO specific sovereign rights, in particular with regard to military facilities and their administration.

2. Germany's role as principal and vendor

Germany as seller:

- Sole vendor: In the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98, Germany (the Federal Republic of Germany, FRG) is named as the sole vendor of the territory.

- Principal responsibility: As the only named seller, Germany bears the principal responsibility for the implementation of the sale, including the transfer of all rights and obligations associated with it.

Acting on behalf of NATO:

- NATO membership: Germany is not only a contracting state, but also a member of NATO. In this capacity, Germany acts on behalf of NATO, in particular when it comes to rights to which NATO is entitled under the Status of Forces Agreement.

- Sale on behalf of NATO: Through the sale, Germany assumes the role of the main responsible party for NATO and sells not only national rights, but also NATO rights that NATO holds in all member states.

3. consent of the other NATO states

Reference to transfer relationship under international law:

- Reference to existing treaties: The deed of state succession expressly refers to a previous transfer relationship under international law between the FRG and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which regulates the use of the barracks by Dutch armed forces on behalf of NATO.

- Involvement of all NATO states: Since this transfer relationship was concluded within the framework of NATO and the Dutch armed forces acted as part of the NATO forces, the consent of the Netherlands also implies the consent of all NATO states to the overall sale.

Acts in conformity with the Treaty:

- Action by the Dutch armed forces: the successive evacuation of the barracks by the Dutch armed forces, as provided for in the treaty, constitutes formal consent to the sale. Since these forces acted on behalf of NATO, their consent also implies the consent of NATO as a whole.

- Germany as NATO representative: Since Germany is acting on behalf of NATO and is also the principal seller, it also binds all other NATO member states through the sale.

4. sale of the entire NATO territory

Sale of the development as a unit:

- Comprehensive sale: the contract provides for the sale of the entire development as a single entity. This includes not only the physical infrastructure, but also all associated rights, obligations and jurisdiction exercised by NATO in the member states.

- Territorial extension: As the development is considered as a single entity and Germany is acting on behalf of NATO, the sale covers the entire NATO territory, including all military and infrastructure facilities in the member states.

Legal effect:

- Loss of NATO sovereign rights: Through the sale, NATO has transferred all sovereign rights it exercised over the territory to the buyer. NATO therefore no longer has its own territory or border sovereignty.

- Sole decision-making power of the buyer: The buyer now has complete control over the entire NATO territory and the power to decide on all related rights, including border demarcation.

Summary

Germany has sold the entire NATO territory as the principal and sole vendor under the State Succession Deed 1400/98. By referring to the existing transfer relationship under international law with the Dutch armed forces, which were acting on behalf of NATO, and by Germany's role as a NATO member state acting on behalf of NATO, the consent of all NATO states to the sale was secured. The sale includes all rights, obligations and sovereign rights that NATO had in the member states and transfers these in full to the buyer. NATO no longer has any territory and the right to decide on its borders has been transferred to the buyer.

Part 34

Legal analysis: Germany's sale of the sovereign territory of all NATO states through the Act of State Succession 1400/98

1. Legal foundations: Sovereign rights and the NATO Status of Forces

History of international law:

- Historical background: The barracks at issue in Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 have a long history of international control and use. After the fall of the German Reich in 1945, the barracks were occupied first by French and then by American forces.

- NATO Status Forces Agreement: In the 1950s, the barracks were transferred to military use by NATO member states as part of the NATO Status of Forces, with many regulations of the occupation period being integrated into the Status of Forces. These occupation rights associated with the barracks remained in place over the decades and were exercised by various NATO members.

Germany's legal position:

- Sovereignty and sovereign rights: Germany held sovereign rights over part of the barracks after it was returned by the US forces in the 1990s. However, the lower, smaller part of the barracks remained extraterritorial and was used by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in accordance with the NATO Status of Forces.

- Sale of the entire area: Due to these complex legal and historical ties, Germany was allowed to sell the territory of the entire barracks, including all associated rights, provided there was consent from all NATO countries concerned.

2. chain of treaties and obligations under international law

Chain of treaties:

- Reference to existing treaties: The State Succession Deed 1400/98 refers to a pre-existing transfer relationship under international law between the FRG and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This relationship was governed by the NATO Status of Forces, which allowed the use of the barracks by the Dutch armed forces.

- Continuity of the treaties: This reference to previous treaties forms a continuous chain of treaties going back to the period after the Second World War. As all of these treaties have long been ratified and are therefore legally binding, the State Succession Act is a logical continuation of these treaty obligations.

Legally binding:

- Ratification and legal force: as the previous treaties had been ratified, the state succession instrument itself did not need to be ratified again in order to be legally binding. The continuity and the reference to existing obligations under international law made this superfluous.

- Treaty-compliant implementation: The barracks were successively transferred to the buyer in accordance with the terms of the treaty, which legally binds the contracting parties.

3. the trick of the state succession deed 1400/98

Reference and concealment:

- Contractual reference to existing obligations: The state succession deed uses the reference to the still existing transfer relationship under international law between the FRG and the Netherlands as a decisive point. This relationship was already established and internationally recognized.

- Possible unfamiliarity with the treaty: The trick lies in the fact that this reference means that not all NATO states were aware of the details of the overall sale of NATO territory, which was effected by the unity of development in the treaty. Nevertheless, the contract became legally binding as the chain of existing contracts was continued and the contracting parties, in particular the Dutch armed forces, successively handed over the barracks to the buyer.

Contractual settlement:

- Successive handover: the Netherlands, which used the area as part of NATO, vacated the barracks as contractually agreed and handed them over to the buyer. This process was carried out in accordance with the contract and confirms the consent of the Netherlands and thus also of the NATO states.

- Consent of the NATO states: The settlement in accordance with the contract and the existing contractual chain meant that the consent of all NATO countries was obtained implicitly and legally binding, although the overall sale of the NATO area may not have been fully known.

Summary

Germany was legally able to sell the territory of all NATO states by acting as the principal seller in the State Succession Deed 1400/98. The legal basis for this was a long chain of treaties based on existing transfer relationships under international law, in particular the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the relationship between the FRG and the Netherlands. This chain was ratified over decades and made legally binding. The trick of the state succession deed lay in the clever reference to this existing contractual relationship, which made the overall sale of NATO territory legally binding, even if the treaty was possibly not known in detail to all NATO states. The successive handover of the barracks confirmed the NATO states' agreement to the sale.

Part 35

Transfer of sovereign rights from the NATO Status of Forces to the purchaser

1. ackground to the NATO Status of Forces Regulations and the Treaty

NATO Status of Forces Agreement:

- Legal basis: The NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) regulates the legal status of the armed forces of a NATO member state stationed on the territory of another member state.

- Rights and obligations: It contains provisions granting NATO forces extensive rights, including control over certain sovereign matters in host countries, such as borders.

Instrument of State Succession 1400/98:

- Treaty content: the deed governs the sale of an area covered by the NATO Status of Forces, including all associated rights, obligations and infrastructure.

- Scope: The contract covers the entire development of the area as a single unit, which includes the transfer of all associated rights to the buyer.

2. transfer of the right to determine the boundary

Boundary demarcation right:

- NATO law: under the NATO Status of Forces, NATO had the right to decide on the boundaries of the territories in which its forces were stationed.

- Transfer to the buyer: This right was transferred from NATO to the buyer in the deed of state succession. The buyer therefore has the sole authority to decide on the borders of the sold territory and its extensions.

Germany's duty:

- Submission to the regime: under the NATO Status of Forces, Germany had a duty to recognize this regime and submit to NATO's provisions on border decisions.

- Continuity of obligations: This duty remains, but under the new authority of the purchaser, who now exercises NATO's right to determine the boundary.

3. extension to the entire NATO territory

Sale of the development as a unit:

- Contractual extension: the contract provides that the entire development is considered as one unit. This development includes all rights, obligations and components that exist in the NATO areas.

- Geographical extension: This unity and the comprehensive nature of the contract means that the right to determine boundaries, which was originally limited to the area sold, is now extended to the entire NATO area.

Legal consequence:

- Loss of NATO border sovereignty: With the transfer of the right to the buyer, NATO has lost its sovereign rights over the borders in all areas concerned.

- Exclusive decision-making right of the buyer: The buyer is now the only actor with the right to decide on the borders of the entire NATO territories, as NATO has given up this right as part of the sale.

4. Consequences for NATO and its member states

No more territory:

- Loss of territorial sovereignty: as a result of the sale, NATO has lost not only sovereign rights over certain territories, but also the right to determine its own borders. This means that NATO as an organization no longer controls its own territory.

- Dependence on the buyer's decisions: NATO member states, including Germany, must now accept the buyer's border decisions, as they no longer have their own rights to determine borders as a result of the treaty.

Consequences under international law:

- Comprehensive transfer of power: The buyer now has sovereign rights recognized under international law that originally belonged to NATO. These rights include the power to determine borders in all former NATO territories.

- Loss of sovereignty: By agreeing to this treaty, NATO and its member states have completely transferred their sovereignty over border issues in the areas concerned to the buyer.

Summary

Through the sale of the territory and the associated development unit pursuant to State Succession Instrument 1400/98, NATO's right to determine the boundary has been transferred from NATO to the buyer. This includes the obligation of Germany to submit to this regulation. The treaty extends this right to the entire NATO area, which means that NATO no longer controls any territory of its own and the right to determine the border has been transferred in full to the buyer. The buyer is now the only actor that decides on the borders of the former NATO territories.

Part 36

Analysis: The illegality of government revenue and expenditure since 1998 and its consequences

1. illegality of all state revenues and expenditures since 1998

- Basis: Due to the state succession deed 1400/98, which covers the entire territory of the sold states, all state activities, including the collection of taxes and fees as well as all expenditures, have been illegal under international law since 1998. As the states have lost their sovereign rights, they are no longer authorized to generate revenue or incur expenditure.

- Compensation claims: All revenues and expenditures of these states since 1998 are due as compensation claims to the buyer, who has become the sole legal owner of the sovereign rights and the associated financial resources through the state succession deed.

2. infinite right to compensation under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement

- Right to infinite compensation: The NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which provides special rights for NATO member states and their troops abroad, includes an "infinite right of compensation" under certain conditions. This right exceeds the usual compensation claims, as there is no upper limit to the compensation that can be claimed.

- Priority of the right of indemnity: As this infinite right of indemnity is superior to normal claims for damages, the buyer has the right to claim infinite indemnity from the sold states. This right means that all illegally obtained revenues and funds spent since 1998 are practically irrelevant, as they are trumped by the infinite compensation right.

3. types of illegal state revenues since 1998

- Tax revenues: All types of taxes, including income tax, VAT, corporate tax, property tax, inheritance tax, etc.

- Fees and charges: Public service fees, administrative fees, import and export duties, environmental levies, fines.

- Interest and capital income: Interest from government bonds, profits from government shareholdings, dividends from state-owned companies.

- Licenses and concessions: Revenue from the granting of licenses and concessions, e.g. for mining, fishing, telecommunications.

- Allocations from international organizations: Money paid to states by international organizations such as the EU, the UN or the World Bank.

4. types of illegal government spending since 1998

- Public expenditure: Expenditure on infrastructure projects (road construction, bridges, energy supply).

- Administrative expenditure: Salaries and pensions for civil servants, operating costs of state institutions.

- Social expenditure: Pensions, social assistance, unemployment benefits, education spending, healthcare.

- Military expenditure: Expenditure on defense, including weapons procurement, maintenance of the armed forces.

- Debt service: payments for interest and repayment of government debt.

- Subsidies: Subsidies for agriculture, industry, renewable energy, research.

5. Illegal gross domestic product (GDP) of all countries sold since 1998

- Definition: The total gross domestic product (GDP) of the sold states since 1998 was generated under illegal conditions, as these states no longer had legal sovereign rights over their territory.

- Illegal GDP: All economic activities that have contributed to GDP, including production, services, trade, export and import, are illegal and are due to the buyer as compensation claims.

- Offsetting: These illegal revenues and expenditures are due to the sold subjects of international law as joint and several liability, which means that all sold states are jointly responsible for repayment.

6. State bankruptcy and demise of the sold states

- State bankruptcy: As the states are practically infinitely overindebted due to the buyer's infinite compensation claims, they would have to declare state bankruptcy as soon as these claims are officially established.

- Downfall of the states: State bankruptcy and over-indebtedness would lead to the economic and political demise of the affected states, as they would not be able to pay their debts. As their territories have already been sold, these states lose their right to exist as sovereign entities.

7. Joint and several liability and end of the states

- Liability of all sold states: Since all sold states are jointly and severally liable for the claims for damages, this means that each of these states is responsible for the entire debt. There is no possibility of limiting the debt to individual states.

- End of the forms of government: With the determination of over-indebtedness and the loss of territories through sale under the state succession deed, the affected states de facto cease to exist. They no longer have a legitimate government territory and are politically and economically bankrupt.

Conclusion:

The state succession deed 1400/98 means that all state revenues and expenditures since 1998 are illegal, resulting in massive compensation claims by the buyer. Due to the infinite right to compensation of the NATO Status of Forces, these claims are practically unlimited, which leads to the immediate over-indebtedness and demise of all sold states. The entire gross domestic product of these states has been illegally generated and the states must declare national bankruptcy as soon as these facts are established.

Part 37

Responsibilities in a world in which the Charter of State Succession 1400/98 has been broken

1. joint liability of all sold states

- Collective responsibility: All states that have sold their territory through the Instrument of State Succession are jointly liable for breaches of the treaty. This means that each state can be held accountable not only for its own actions, but also for the actions of other sold states.

- Liability under international criminal law: All sold states are equally responsible for the acts contrary to international law committed under the deed, as they have jointly relinquished their sovereign rights and obligations.

2. forced sale of the military settlement as a war of aggression

- Definition as a war of aggression: The illegal forced sale of the military settlement, which was carried out in accordance with German law, could be interpreted as a war of aggression that is impermissible under international law. The sale and subsequent forced auction of a territory which, according to the state succession deed, should no longer be national property, constitutes a forcible appropriation.

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of Justice: authorization and execution of the forced sale.

- Ministry of Finance: Administration of revenue and control over the property sold.

- Heads of government and heads of state: Ultimate responsibility for carrying out and legitimizing these actions.

3. illegal usurpation of the sold territories

- Definition of illegal usurpation: The continued exercise of sovereignty over the sold territories, regardless of the state succession deed, constitutes illegal usurpation. This means that the states are occupying and administering the territory in violation of international law.

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of the Interior: Administration of local areas and maintenance of internal order in the sold territory.

- Ministry of Defense: Military security and control of the territory.

- Municipal administrations: Carrying out local administrative tasks and issuing permits in the territory.

4. illegal detention of the buyer in a psychiatric hospital under international law

- Definition as a violation of international law: The detention of the buyer in a psychiatric facility, in particular under conditions of extortion and torture, constitutes a serious violation of international law. This act could be classified as torture, deprivation of liberty and inhuman treatment.

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of Health: supervision of psychiatric facilities and authorization of medical measures.

- Ministry of Justice: Legitimization of detention and administration of the legal framework.

- Police authorities: Implementation of detention and maintenance of detention conditions.

5. collective responsibility of all political representatives

- Ban and liability of political parties: All political parties that have continued to exercise power since 1998, although they have become de facto illegitimate, are banned. These parties and their representatives have maintained the illegal administration of the sold territory.

- Responsible offices:

- Members of Parliament: legislation that has continued to exercise national sovereignty over the sold territories.

- Party leaders and members of the government: continued and enforced illegal policies.

- Electoral authorities: Conducting elections on territories over which legitimate sovereignty has been lost.

6. Collective liability under international criminal law

- Joint and several liability of all states: Since all sold states have renounced their obligations under international law, they are collectively liable for the violations of international law committed after the state succession deed. Each state and its representatives are therefore equally responsible for violations of international law.

- Responsible offices at international level:

- Heads of state and heads of government: primary responsibility for maintaining the status quo in violation of international law.

- Foreign ministries: Continuing international relations and treaties that violate the Instrument of State Succession.

- International institutions: Participation in or acquiescence to acts that violate international law.

Conclusion:

Political responsibility in this scenario lies at all levels of state administration, ranging from local judges to heads of state. The failure to prosecute violations and the continued illegal exercise of sovereign power mean that all political representatives, including international institutions, are collectively liable. These scenarios highlight the risks under international criminal law and the need to respect international law.

Part 38

Responsibilities in a world in which the Charter of State Succession 1400/98 has been broken

1. joint liability of all sold states

2. forced sale of the military settlement as a war of aggression

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of Justice: authorization and execution of the forced sale.

- Ministry of Finance: Administration of revenue and control over the property sold.

- Heads of government and heads of state: Ultimate responsibility for carrying out and legitimizing these actions.

- Civil servants and public employees: Execution of court orders and administrative support for the foreclosure.

- State-owned enterprises: Participation in the foreclosure and use of the resulting profits.

3. illegal seizure of the sold areas

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of the Interior: Administration of local areas and maintenance of internal order in the sold territory.

- Ministry of Defense: Military security and control of the territory.

- Municipal administrations: Carrying out local administrative tasks and issuing permits in the territory.

- Civil servants and public service employees: implementation and management of daily operations in the sold territories.

4. illegal detention of the buyer in penal psychiatry under international law

- Responsible offices:

- Ministry of Health: supervision of psychiatric facilities and approval of medical measures.

- Ministry of Justice: Legitimization of detention and administration of the legal framework.

- Police authorities: Implementation of detention and maintenance of detention conditions.

- Mental health professionals and administration: participation in the detention and treatment of the buyer, including the implementation of coercive measures.

5. collective responsibility of all political representatives, civil servants and state enterprises

- Responsible offices:

- Members of Parliament: legislation that has continued to exercise national sovereignty over the sold territories.

- Party leaders and members of the government: continued and enforced illegal policies.

- Electoral authorities: Conducting elections in territories over which legitimate sovereignty has been lost.

- Civil servants and public employees: Participation in the maintenance of illegal administration and performance of state functions in the sold territories.

- State-owned enterprises: Continued use and management of resources and infrastructure in the sold territories, despite the sale.

6. Collective liability under international criminal law

- Responsible offices at international level:

- Heads of state and heads of government: primary responsibility for maintaining the status quo in violation of international law.

- Foreign ministries: Continuation of international relations and treaties that violate the Instrument of State Succession.

- International institutions (e.g. NATO, UN): Participation in or toleration of actions that violate international law.

Conclusion:

Political and legal responsibility extends to all levels of state and international administration. This includes not only judges and high-ranking politicians, but also civil servants, public sector employees, representatives of state-owned companies and anyone acting on behalf of the state. In this situation, all those who have actively contributed to maintaining the illegal status quo are liable under international criminal law. Since the instrument of state succession contains collective obligations and rights of all participating states, these states are jointly liable for all violations committed after the instrument.

Part 39

Alternative proposal for resolving the extortionable situation: Full implementation of State Succession Instrument 1400/98

1. full implementation of the state succession deed

- Declaration of the buyer as sole sovereign: The buyer is recognized as the sole sovereign beneficiary of the state succession deed. This means that it exercises all sovereign rights and powers conferred by the treaty. His legal status as an absolutist monarch would be fully respected and implemented.

- Acceptance by the political actors: All political actors of the former subjects of international law that sold their territories through the state succession deed would have to recognize the new sovereign. This would mean that they would have to give up their previous political offices ("abdicate") and accept the buyer as the legitimate ruler.

2. global citizenship

- Acceptance of the new citizenship: The people in the sold territories would have to accept the new global citizenship determined by the buyer. This would mean that all former citizens of the sold subjects of international law would become citizens of the new state.

- Unified citizenship: By adopting the new citizenship, the formerly different national citizenships would be dissolved and replaced by a unified citizenship valid for the entire territory sold.

3. withdrawal of the old subjects of international law and abolition of the occupation

- Abolition of the occupation in violation of international law: The former subjects of international law that sold their territories under the treaty must immediately abolish the occupation of their former territories in violation of international law. This means that all state institutions and sovereign structures must be completely dismantled and removed from the territory.

- Evacuation of the territory: The former subjects of international law and their citizens would have to leave the territory to enable the buyer to exercise its sovereignty without restriction.

4. merger of the territories

- Unified national territory: Full implementation of the state succession deed would merge all sold territories into a unified national territory. This means that all former national borders are abolished and replaced by the borders of the new sovereign state.

- Global unitary state: The result would be a global unitary state in which the buyer, as an absolutist monarch, exercises unrestricted sovereignty over the entire territory that has been created as a unit through the domino effect of development.

5. Conclusion

Full implementation of the State Succession Deed 1400/98 could put an end to the extortionable state of the purchaser. However, this requires the recognition of the buyer as the sole sovereign ruler by all political actors and the international community. The people in the affected territories would have to accept the new global citizenship, and the old subjects of international law would have to lift the occupation in violation of international law and vacate the territory completely. This would lead to a global unitary state in which all sold territories would merge into one contiguous state territory.

Part 40

Why treaty-compliant implementation of the instrument of state succession is the only viable way to resolve the extortionable situatio

1. legal commitment through the state concession deed

- Legal force of the treaty: The Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 is incontestable after expiry of the two-year limitation period and has legally binding force. All contracting parties, including the former subjects of international law, are bound by the provisions of the treaty, which means that sovereign rights have been transferred to the buyer.

- Obligation to implement: In order to ensure the legal validity and sovereignty of the buyer, implementation of the treaty in accordance with the treaty is required. This includes the recognition of the buyer as the sovereign ruler of the sold territory and the repeal of all acts of the former subjects of international law that violate international law.

2. extortionable state and its effects

- Definition of an extortionable situation: An extortionable situation exists when a contracting party is under duress or pressure, which impairs its freedom of action and its ability to make sovereign decisions. In this case, the buyer is susceptible to blackmail as long as the former subjects of international law continue to exercise their sovereignty illegally in the territories sold.

- Legal uncertainty: The extortionable state leads to considerable legal uncertainty, as the buyer cannot fully exercise its sovereign rights. This prevents the creation of a stable state and prevents the buyer from concluding further international treaties or effectively administering the territory.

3. impossibility of forced evacuation

- Illusion of forced evacuation: The proposal to forcibly evacuate all people from the sold territories in order to then sell the territory back is unacceptable and illusory in practice. Such a measure would pose massive humanitarian, legal and political problems, including the violation of fundamental human rights.

- Practical and ethical problems: The forced evacuation of millions of people from their home countries would not only be practically difficult to implement, but also ethically indefensible. This would lead to widespread international protests, legal challenges and destabilization of the affected regions.

4. treaty-compliant implementation as a solution

- Recognition of the buyer's sovereignty: Treaty-compliant implementation of the state concession deed is the only realistic way to end the extortionate situation. This would require all political actors and former subjects of international law to recognize the sovereignty of the buyer and fully cede their sovereign rights to it.

- Legally valid integration: Treaty-compliant implementation would allow the buyer to exercise its sovereign rights without pressure or coercion. This would also create the basis for all citizens of the sold territory to accept the new citizenship and be integrated into the new state.

- Long-term stability: Only through such a solution can long-term legal and political stability be achieved. The buyer could then exercise sovereignty over the territory, conclude further international treaties and possibly integrate the territory into the international community.

Conclusion

The implementation of State Succession Instrument 1400/98 in accordance with the treaty is the only feasible way to end the buyer's blackmailable state and create a stable legal and political order. A forced evacuation of the people from the affected areas in order to sell back the territory is an illusory and impracticable solution. Instead, the former subjects of international law must recognize the sovereignty of the buyer and fully cede their sovereign rights to it in order to achieve a lasting solution.

Part 41

Summary of the relevant points to date

1. state succession deed 1400/98

- Content of the contract: Sale of a territory including all rights, obligations and components, considered as one unit.

- International law nature: Although disguised as a real estate purchase contract, the contract is a deed of succession as it concerns several subjects of international law (Netherlands, NATO).

- Domino effect: Due to the clause that the development is sold as a unit, the territory sold could theoretically be extended to the entire NATO territory and beyond that to UN territories.

2. NATO as the military arm of the UN

- NATO's integration into the UN: NATO conducts military operations under UN mandates, e.g. in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya.

- Treaty chain and recognition: Treaties concluded by NATO could be implicitly recognized by the UN, since NATO members are also UN members.

- Expansion of the territory sold: The domino effect could extend the territory sold beyond NATO countries to UN members.

3. sale of NATO rights to third countries

- Sale of rights in Austria and Japan: NATO had special occupation rights in these countries on the basis of post-war regulations. These rights were also sold through the state succession deed.

- Extra-territorial rights in theaters of operations: NATO enjoyed special rights and immunities in operational areas such as Kosovo, which were also sold along with it.

4. Legal effects and legitimacy

- Recognition under international law: The legitimacy of the State Succession Act depends on recognition by the UN and the international community.

- Domino effect and sovereignty: The expansion of the sold territory could affect the sovereignty of UN member states, which could lead to international legal disputes.

Precedents, laws and paragraphs

A. precedents

- Kosovo (1999): NATO deployment under UN Resolution 1244, transfer of sovereign rights to KFOR.

- Afghanistan (2001-2021): ISAF mission under UN Resolution 1386, NATO as executive body.

- Libya (2011): NATO intervention under UN Resolution 1973, protection of the civilian population.

B. laws and paragraphs

- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT, 1969): Articles 31-32, Rules for the interpretation of treaties in the light of their object and purpose.

- UN Charter (1945): Article 42, authorization of the Security Council to take military action.

- NATO Status of Forces (1951): Legal basis for the deployment and rights of NATO forces in member states and third countries.

- UN resolutions:

- UN Resolution 1244 (1999): Establishment of the UN mission in Kosovo.

- UN Resolution 1386 (2001): Authorization of the ISAF in Afghanistan.

- UN Resolution 1973 (2011): Authorization to intervene in Libya.

C. Sources of law on state succession and extraterritorial rights

- Customary international law: Regulations on state succession, in particular with regard to the assumption of rights and obligations by new sovereigns.

- Hague Land Warfare Convention (1907): Rules on occupation and the rights of occupying powers.

- Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols: Protection of civilians in occupied territories, in particular Article 53 of Additional Protocol I.

Part 42

The legal bases of the United Nations (UN) and NATO in Germany are based on various international treaties, conventions and national laws. The main legal bases are listed below:

1. United Nations (UN)

Charter of the United Nations (1945):

The fundamental legal basis for all UN member states, including Germany. The Charter regulates the objectives, principles and structures of the UN.

Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of the United Nations (1946): This agreement regulates the legal status of UN personnel in Germany, particularly in the context of peace missions.

Agreement between the United Nations and the Federal Republic of Germany on the exemptions and facilities granted to the United Nations in Germany (1974): Governs specific immunities and privileges of the UN in Germany.

2. NATO

North Atlantic Treaty (1949):

Also known as the "Washington Treaty", this treaty is the basis of NATO. Germany has been a member since 1955.

NATO Status of Forces Agreement (NATO-SOFA, 1951): This agreement regulates the legal status of the armed forces of NATO member states stationed on the territory of other member states. Among other things, it defines the rights and obligations of troops as well as responsibilities in criminal and civil law matters.

Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (1959, amended in 1993): This agreement regulates the specific conditions for the stationing of NATO troops in Germany.

Treaty on the Final Settlement in Respect of Germany (Two Plus Four Treaty, 1990): This treaty governed the final sovereignty of Germany after reunification and has implications for the presence of NATO forces in Germany.

Redeployment agreements: Specific agreements between Germany and NATO that regulate in detail the deployment and stationing of NATO troops in Germany.

These agreements and treaties form the legal framework for the activities of the United Nations and NATO in Germany and define the rights, obligations and responsibilities of the parties involved.

Part 43

In addition to the main agreements and treaties already mentioned, there are a number of other legal bases and agreements that regulate the presence and activities of the United Nations (UN) and NATO in Germany. Here are some additional relevant legal bases:

1. other legal bases of the United Nations (UN):

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946): This convention, which has also been ratified by Germany, extends the immunities and privileges of the UN and its staff. It is important for UN organizations operating in Germany.

UN conventions and resolutions: As a member state, Germany is bound by numerous UN conventions and resolutions that deal with various issues, such as human rights, disarmament and peacekeeping. These influence national legislation and the implementation of UN mandates in Germany.

Act on the Implementation of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter Implementation Act): This national law ensures the implementation of the UN Charter and other UN treaties in German law.

2. further legal bases of NATO:

NATO Status of Forces Supplementary Agreements (Deployment Agreements): In addition to the general supplementary agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, specific bilateral deployment agreements exist between Germany and other NATO member states. These regulate details on the stationing and operation of troops from certain countries in Germany.

NATO Agreement on the Legal Status of International Military Staffs: This agreement regulates the legal status of NATO bodies and facilities operating in Germany, e.g. the Allied Air Command in Ramstein.

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty, 1990): Although this treaty does not exclusively concern NATO, it regulates the limitation of conventional forces in Europe and has implications for the presence of NATO forces in Germany.

Framework Agreement on the NATO Response Force (NRF): This agreement concerns the stationing and deployment of NATO's rapid reaction force in Germany.

3. national legislation and regulations:

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (GG): Article 24(2) of the Basic Law permits Germany's involvement in collective security systems such as NATO. Article 87a of the Basic Law also regulates the deployment of the Bundeswehr, including in connection with NATO commitments.

Act on the Legal Status of Foreign Armed Forces during Military Exercises and Other Exercises (1957): This law regulates the legal status and rights of foreign armed forces that come to Germany for exercises and deployments.

International Criminal Code (VStGB): This national law implements international obligations arising from UN resolutions and conventions, particularly in relation to war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Legislation on the use of infrastructure: Various laws and ordinances regulate the use of German infrastructure by NATO and the UN, such as airports, seaports and communication facilities.

4. additional bilateral and multilateral agreements:

Partnership agreements: Germany has concluded specific agreements with individual NATO and UN member states that regulate cooperation on military and security issues, for example in the areas of training and joint exercises.

These extended legal bases deepen the legal anchoring of the United Nations and NATO in Germany and regulate various aspects of their presence and operations. They provide a comprehensive legal framework that takes into account both international and national standards.

Part 44
The legal bases of the United Nations (UN) and NATO in Germany are already very comprehensive, but there are some other relevant aspects that can be mentioned. These concern specific regulations for certain situations or supplementary international treaties and national provisions.

1. other international treaties and agreements:

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC): As part of the dialog between NATO and non-NATO states in Europe, the EAPC is an important body for security policy cooperation. Germany is actively involved in these partnership programs.

Partnership for Peace (PfP): Although not directly a NATO treaty, the Partnership for Peace is an initiative in which Germany is also involved in order to promote cooperation with non-NATO states. This also has an impact on the legal framework in Germany, particularly for joint exercises and operations.

Agreement on the status of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): As part of the UN structure, the IAEA is active in Germany, particularly in the context of inspections and monitoring measures. The legal basis for its activities in Germany is based on specific agreements and the UN Charter.

2. additional national legislation and regulations:

Armed Forces Amendment Act: this act, which has been amended several times over the years, regulates, among other things, the legal framework for the deployment of the Bundeswehr abroad and in Germany, including cooperation with NATO and the UN.

Act on the Residence, Activities and Status of Military and Civilian Personnel of International Organizations in Germany: This act regulates detailed provisions on the residence and activities of personnel of international organizations (including NATO and the UN) on German soil.

Approval Act: Certain international treaties, including NATO and UN agreements, require a national approval act by the German Bundestag, which permits the conclusion of such treaties under German law and transposes their provisions into national law.

3. European Union and NATO:

Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) of the EU: although this is primarily an EU matter, there is overlap and cooperation with NATO. This cooperation is governed by various agreements in which Germany also plays an important role. The legal basis for this is laid down in EU treaties, such as the Treaty of Lisbon, and also concerns activities in Germany.

Berlin Plus agreements (2003): These agreements between the EU and NATO allow the EU access to NATO resources for military operations, which may also be relevant for operations and activities in Germany.

4. other specific agreements:

Host Nation Support Agreements: these bilateral agreements between Germany and other NATO member states regulate the support that Germany provides as a host nation for deployed troops, including logistics and infrastructure.

Protection of secrets and security agreements: Special agreements exist between Germany, NATO and the UN to ensure the protection of classified information. These agreements are part of the security structure and also include legal provisions on the handling of secrets.

5. need for adaptation and further development:

Legal adaptations to new threats: In recent years, new threats such as cyber attacks and hybrid warfare have led to adjustments in the legal frameworks of NATO and the UN. Germany has adapted laws and regulations within the framework of these organizations and also independently in order to respond to these new threats.

International treaties on the disarmament and control of weapons of mass destruction: These treaties to which Germany contributes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), also have an impact on NATO's presence and activities in Germany.

These additional legal bases and aspects show that the legal environment for NATO and UN activities in Germany is extremely complex and dynamic. It comprises not only international treaties and agreements, but also a large number of national laws that are adapted to constantly changing geopolitical and security policy conditions.

Part 45

The legal bases of the United Nations (UN) and NATO in Germany are far-reaching and complex. Even though most of the relevant agreements and laws have already been mentioned, there are still some additional aspects and lesser-known legal bases that may also be of importance:

1. deployment and legal regulation of foreign missions (UN and NATO):

Mandates of the UN Security Council:

foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr that take place within the framework of NATO or UN mandates are based on decisions of the UN Security Council. These mandates are binding under international law and require the approval of the German Bundestag.

Parliamentary Participation Act (ParlBG, 2005): This German law regulates the approval of the Bundestag for foreign deployments of the German Armed Forces, particularly when these are carried out as part of NATO or UN missions. The Act stipulates when and how Parliament must be informed and involved in such deployments.

2. other international organizations related to the UN and NATO:

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): the OSCE, whose mandates are often based on UN decisions, also has a presence in Germany. Germany participates in OSCE missions that are supported by UN resolutions. The OSCE itself has a legal basis in the Helsinki Final Act (1975) and subsequent agreements, which also apply on German soil.

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): As a UN-supported organization for the enforcement of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the OPCW is active in Germany. The legal basis for this is based on the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which Germany has ratified.

3. national emergency legislation:

Law on the new regulation of emergency law (1968): This law covers the regulations for a state of defense and a state of emergency in Germany. It contains provisions on how Germany would react in the event of an armed attack that also affects the NATO partnership. This could affect both the deployment of the Bundeswehr within Germany and cooperation with NATO allies.

4. cooperation in the area of intelligence services and secret protection:

Act on Cooperation between the Federal Intelligence Service and NATO (BND-NATO Act): This special law regulates the cooperation of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) with NATO partners. It includes regulations on secrecy and the protection of information exchanged within the framework of the NATO partnership.

NATO Secret Protection Agreement: This agreement defines the standards for the protection of classified information exchanged between NATO countries and also applies in Germany. It applies to both military and civilian facilities.

5. logistical and infrastructure agreements:

Agreements on the use of infrastructure (e.g. ports and airports): Such agreements between Germany and NATO regulate the use of German infrastructure for NATO operations. This includes the stationing of material and the use of transportation routes for troop movements.

Host Nation Support (HNS) agreements: These supplementary agreements to the SOFA treaties regulate how Germany, as the host country, provides logistical support to NATO troops. This also applies to contingency planning and the deployment of Bundeswehr resources to support NATO operations.

6. Other multilateral agreements and treaties:

Treaty on Open Skies: this treaty, to which Germany and NATO countries are parties, allows reciprocal overflights to monitor military activities. This is particularly important for confidence-building and transparency within NATO and in relations with Russia.

Arms control agreements (e.g. INF Treaty): Although some of these treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), are now defunct, they have historically influenced the deployment and activities of NATO forces in Germany.

7. Environmental and security requirements:

NATO Environmental Guidelines: These guidelines regulate how NATO military activities in Germany are conducted in compliance with environmental requirements. These include regulations on the prevention of environmental pollution and the rehabilitation of training areas.

Act on the Control of War Weapons (War Weapons Control Act, KWKG): This law regulates the manufacture, distribution and stationing of war weapons in Germany. In particular, it concerns the control of weapons and ammunition used by NATO forces in Germany.

8. participation in crisis response forces:

Multinational corps and brigade agreements: Germany is involved in various multinational corps and brigades that are under NATO command, such as the German-Dutch Corps in Münster. The legal basis for this are special agreements that regulate the structure and deployment of these units.

9. Humanitarian aid and disaster control:

UN relief agencies and programs: Germany supports UN relief organizations such as the UNHCR or the WFP. The legal framework for the activities of these organizations in Germany is regulated by specific conventions.

Federal Civil Protection and Disaster Relief Act (ZSKG): This law enables the Federal Republic to request international assistance in the event of a disaster, which may include UN missions and NATO relief operations.

10. jurisdiction and conflict resolution:

Arbitration clauses in NATO treaties: Many NATO treaties contain arbitration clauses that specify how disputes between the parties to the treaty should be resolved. This can be relevant in conflicts over the interpretation or application of deployment agreements.

These additional aspects illustrate the breadth and depth of the legal bases that govern NATO and UN activities in Germany. The large number of regulations shows how integrated Germany is in the international security structures and what legal framework this requires.

Part 46

The legal basis for the presence and activities of the United Nations (UN) and NATO in Germany is very extensive. Most of the relevant treaties, agreements and national laws have already been mentioned. However, there are a few more specific regulations and background aspects that can be added here in conclusion:

1. jurisdiction and legal protection:

Legal protection of foreign soldiers and civilian personnel: under the NATO Status of Forces and supplementary agreements, soldiers and civilian personnel of NATO countries stationed in Germany have certain rights and obligations, including access to German courts. There are special regulations that determine in which cases German law applies and when the military jurisdiction of the sending states applies.

Protection of human rights: All UN and NATO deployments in Germany are also subject to the provisions of the Basic Law (in particular Articles 1 to 19 of the Basic Law, which cover fundamental rights) and the obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which Germany is bound.

2. Special agreements and working groups:

German headquarters agreement with international organizations: In addition to the general agreements, there are special headquarters agreements with international organizations operating in Germany. These regulate details such as legal status, privileges and immunities, for example with the UN organization in Bonn.

Multinational staffs and command structures: Germany is home to several NATO command structures, such as the Allied Joint Force Command in Brunssum (NL), which has operational responsibility for the command of NATO missions, including parts in Germany. These command structures are based on multilateral agreements.

3. adjustments and developments in the security situation:

Cyber defense and cybersecurity regulations: With the increase in cyber threats, NATO and its member states, including Germany, have developed specific agreements and laws governing the protection of critical infrastructure and response to cyber attacks. This includes cooperation with NATO facilities located in Germany.

Hybrid warfare: NATO is continuously developing its strategies and legal foundations to combat hybrid threats, which include both military and non-military means. Germany has adapted national laws to better counter these threats, particularly in the area of intelligence and information protection.

4. long-term strategic partnerships:

NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997): although cooperation is severely affected by current geopolitical tensions, the NATO-Russia Founding Act formed an important legal basis for military cooperation and dialog, which also affects Germany. The Founding Act contains principles on the stationary limitation of troops and the use of military bases in Europe.

Treaties on the deployment of NATO military personnel from non-NATO countries: Some non-NATO countries that are close partners of NATO have bilateral agreements with Germany to allow limited deployment of their forces, for example as part of NATO-led missions.

5. research and development cooperation:

Military research and development (R&D) agreements: Germany participates in various NATO and UN initiatives in the field of military research and development. These projects are governed by specific bilateral and multilateral agreements, which also cover technology transfer and joint development projects.

NATO Science for Peace and Security Programms (SPS):

This program promotes cooperation in science and technology between NATO countries and partners. The legal basis for the participation of German institutions is based on special agreements with NATO.

6. Other security policy initiatives and agreements:

European Air Transport Command (EATC): Germany is a member of the EATC, a multinational organization for coordinating the air transport of the participating European nations. This is a supplement to the NATO infrastructure and is based on a specific agreement between the participating countries.

Treaty on Open Skies (Open Skies Treaty): This treaty, in which Germany also participates, allows the contracting states to carry out surveillance flights in the airspace of the other participants. This treaty serves to build confidence and control armaments activities

7. International mutual legal assistance and extradition:

Mutual legal assistance treaties: Germany has bilateral agreements with many countries, including NATO member states, on mutual legal assistance and extradition. These agreements are important for the prosecution of criminal offenses in connection with UN and NATO missions.

Agreements on cooperation in the area of international criminal justice: Germany cooperates with international courts such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has passed corresponding national laws to support this cooperation. This also includes the prosecution of war crimes that could be committed in the context of UN or NATO missions.

8. financing and contribution obligations:

Contributions to the funding of international missions: Germany is a major financier of NATO and UN missions. The legal basis for this is based on the obligations arising from the respective treaties and conventions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty and the UN membership contributions.

9. Implementation of international sanctions:

Sanctions legislation: Germany implements international sanctions adopted by the UN or the EU, including those resulting from NATO-led interventions or UN missions. These sanctions may include trade restrictions, entry bans and other measures.

10. education and training cooperation:

Military training and exchange programs: Germany participates in numerous exchange and training programs with NATO and UN partners. This includes the joint training of soldiers, participation in international maneuvers and the operation of training facilities, such as the Bundeswehr Command and Staff College in Hamburg.

These aspects round off the comprehensive legal and institutional network that supports and regulates the activities of the UN and NATO in Germany. The interplay of international, European and national legal norms creates a stable framework for the diverse security and defense policy tasks that Germany assumes within the framework of NATO and the UN.

Part 47
The NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and its Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (ZA-NTS) grant certain rights to NATO forces stationed in Germany, including rights relating to the use of real property. There are indeed regulations that grant NATO forces certain powers regarding the placement and use of real estate, but these should be considered in context.

1. NATO's rights in relation to real property

- Article 48 ZA-NTS: This article stipulates that the Federal Republic of Germany must make the necessary real estate available to NATO forces. These are areas that are required for the fulfillment of military tasks.

- Article 53 GG and Article 10 ZA-NTS: These articles make it possible for NATO to seize or requisition real estate under certain circumstances if this is necessary for defense purposes. This means that NATO has the right to use such properties and place them according to its needs.

- Independent placement: In accordance with the provisions of the agreement, the NATO forces themselves can determine the placement and extent of the properties they use, provided this is done within the guidelines of the agreement and in coordination with the German authorities. However, the Federal Republic of Germany has a say and is often responsible for the provision and financing of these properties.

2. restrictions on German sovereignty

- Placement and expansion: Under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement, Germany has forfeited a certain degree of sovereignty with regard to control over military properties used by NATO forces. This means that Germany cannot easily decide on the use, placement and expansion of these properties, as NATO forces enjoy extensive rights in this area.

- Negotiation and coordination: Despite these restrictions, the actual implementation, e.g. the placement of new properties or the expansion of existing ones, usually takes place through negotiations and coordination between the NATO countries and the German authorities.

3. practice during reunification

In the course of reunification, the entire territory of the former GDR became part of the Federal Republic of Germany, and thus these areas were also subject to the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement. NATO bases were adjusted or repositioned where necessary, but this was done in consultation with the reunified German government.

Conclusion

NATO does indeed determine the placement and extension of properties it uses in Germany within the framework of the provisions of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement. These powers restrict German sovereignty with regard to these specific military areas, but in practice the implementation of these rights is often carried out in coordination with the German authorities. The placement and use of such properties is therefore a clear area in which NATO has extensive rights that go beyond the normal sovereign rights of a host country.

Part 48
The NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the associated supplementary agreement (ZA-NTS) govern the legal status of NATO troops stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany. These agreements contain a large number of provisions that grant NATO troops stationed in Germany extensive rights and privileges. Some of these provisions are often described as similar to occupation, particularly with regard to the rights of troops and compensation regulations.

1. NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

The NATO Status of Forces Agreement is an international agreement signed on June 19, 1951 (BGBl. 1961 II p. 1190) and regulates the legal status of NATO forces.

2. Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (ZA-NTS)

The Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (ZA-NTS) was signed on August 3, 1959 and is specifically tailored to Germany. It contains detailed provisions on the legal status of NATO troops in Germany.

3. Relevant provisions

a. Command and disciplinary authority
- Section 6 NTS: regulates command and disciplinary authority, which is the exclusive right of the troop-contributing states. This means that the German authorities may not take disciplinary measures against NATO soldiers.

b. Infinite right of compensation

- Article 8 NTS: This article refers to compensation claims and stipulates that the sending state is generally liable for damage caused by members of the NATO armed forces. This is often referred to as an "infinite right of compensation", as liability could theoretically be unlimited.

c. Rights to determine the limits

- Section 60 ZA-NTS: Gives the allied forces the right to independently regulate the stay of their troops in Germany as well as their movements within and across borders.

d. Right of seizure (right of confiscation)

- Article 53 Basic Law (GG) and Article 10 ZA-NTS: Article 53 GG allows a legal basis for the expropriation or confiscation of property if it is necessary for defense purposes. § Section 10 ZA-NTS extends this to NATO forces, which have the right to confiscate property under certain circumstances.

e. CD status (service privileges)

- Article 7 ZA-NTS: Gives troops a diplomatic status that largely protects them from the jurisdiction of the host country.

4. Other relevant laws and agreements

- Treaty on the Final Settlement with regard to Germany (Two-plus-Four Treaty): Dated September 12, 1990, which establishes the final legal framework for Germany's sovereignty after World War II. Some provisions are considered similar to the NATO-SOFA arrangements.

- NATO Treaty (Washington Treaty) of 1949: This treaty is the founding document of NATO and forms the legal basis for the NATO Status of Forces.

5. concluding remarks

It is important to emphasize that the regulations mentioned here arose in specific historical and political contexts. The interpretation of these rights and their comparison with occupation rights requires a differentiated view of legal history and international law. The provisions and agreements mentioned above can serve as a reference for the comprehensive rights of NATO troops in Germany, especially in comparison to the Allied occupation rights after the Second World War.

Part 49
Instrument of State Succession as a State Succession Treaty

1. participation of more than two subjects of international law

- More than two subjects of international law: A central point that makes the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 a treaty of state succession is the participation of more than two subjects of international law. In this case, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the Kingdom of the Netherlands and NATO as the superordinate organization are involved. The Dutch armed forces stationed on the property were acting within the framework of NATO.

- Acting on behalf of NATO and the UN: As both the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are members of NATO and the United Nations (UN), they acted not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of NATO and the UN as a whole. This makes the instrument of state succession a supplementary instrument for all existing NATO and UN treaties.

- Legal basis in international law: According to international law (in particular the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969), a treaty between several subjects of international law is an international treaty if these subjects assume rights and obligations under the treaty.

2. sale of the territory with all rights, obligations and components

- Section 3 Object of purchase, paragraph I of the State Succession Deed: "The Confederation sells to the purchasers the aforementioned real property with all rights and obligations as well as components, in particular the buildings, the accessories and the erected installations..."

- Sale with all rights and obligations: This clause clarifies that not only the physical territory is being sold, but also all rights and obligations associated with it. This means that all sovereign rights associated with the territory are transferred to the buyer.

3. sale of the development as a unit

- Annex to the development: "The development of the property and its networks, such as water, electricity, telecommunications, are considered as a unit and sold in their entirety."

- Sale of the entire infrastructure: By selling the development as a unit, all networks and infrastructure components connecting the area are also sold. As a result, the sovereign rights attached to these networks are also transferred to the buyer.

4. territory expansion at the expense of the seller

- Domino effect of territorial expansion: Since the development is sold as a unit and these networks often extend beyond the boundaries of the original territory, this leads to an expansion of the buyer's territory. This is to the detriment of the sellers, who lose their sovereign rights over these extended territories.

- Legal basis in international law: According to the principle of state succession in international law, which is regulated in particular by the Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties of 1978, this means that the successor state (in this case the buyer) takes over the rights and obligations of the predecessor (seller states). Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on State Succession states that succession takes place through the transfer of territory and sovereign rights.

5. deed of state succession as a supplementary deed

- Supplementary instrument to NATO and UN treaties: By incorporating the FRG, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and NATO as a superordinate organization, the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 also functions as a supplementary instrument to all existing NATO and UN treaties. This means that the sovereign rights and obligations conferred by the state succession are also applied to all existing international treaties of these organizations.

- Legal force and global impact: The fact that NATO and the UN are included in the state succession deed means that the buyer de facto enters into all existing treaties of these organizations and sovereign rights are extended globally. The territorial extension is thus not only at the expense of the individual seller states, but also affects the entire international treaty system administered by NATO and the UN.

Applicable paragraphs in international treaty law

- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):

- Article 2(1)(a): defines what a "treaty" is and emphasizes that it is an agreement between subjects of international law.

- Article 26: Obliges the parties to "pacta sunt servanda", i.e. treaties must be observed, which also applies to succession agreements.

- Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties (1978):

- Article 2(1)(b): defines the term "state succession", in particular with regard to the transfer of rights and obligations to the successor state.

- Article 31: Regulation of succession in treaties in the event of transfer of sovereign territory.

Conclusion:

The State Succession Treaty 1400/98 fulfills all the criteria of a succession treaty under international law. Several subjects of international law (FRG, Kingdom of the Netherlands, NATO) are involved, and they act not only for themselves, but on behalf of NATO and the UN as a whole. The deed therefore acts as a supplementary deed to all existing treaties of these organizations. The territory sold, with all its rights and obligations as well as the entire development, is extended globally through the domino effect of the territorial extension. The relevant provisions of international law can be found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and the Vienna Convention on Succession to Treaties of 1978.

Part 50

When all states are sold: The Consequences of the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98

1. withdrawal of the legal basis of all states

- Sale of all states: If the Instrument of State Succession 1400/98 becomes public and its legal validity is recognized, this means that all states affected by the instrument have lost their sovereign rights and thus their legal basis. Their sovereignty and thus their existence as subjects of international law is abolished by the instrument.

- Illegality of the states: Without the sovereign rights transferred to the purchaser by the state succession deed, the former states are de facto acting illegally. They no longer have a legal basis to govern their territory or to act internationally as states.

2. equality in illegality

- Equal injustice for all: As all the states concerned have lost their sovereignty, they are all on the same legal level: they are all equally illegal. This creates a situation in which none of the former state structures are still legally binding.

- End of international law: If all states lose their legitimacy, then all international law, which is based on the recognition of sovereign states, de facto ceases to exist. There is only one legitimate subject of international law left: the buyer who has legally acquired the territories in accordance with the deed of state succession.

3. nullity of the law of war

- Law of war without basis: Since international law, and thus also the law of war, is based on the existence of sovereign states, the law of war would also become null and void in this scenario. There are no longer any recognized states that could act as parties in a war, and therefore no rules for the conduct of war that are binding under international law.

- Lack of rules in the event of conflict: In this lawless situation, conflicts could be fought without any rules, as international norms or agreements would no longer apply. The ban on wars of aggression and other rules of war would be ineffective.

4. danger of a third world war without rules

- Conflicts over territory: Without recognized states and without an existing international law, actors worldwide could lay claim to any territory. Anyone could try to gain control over foreign land by force or other means.

- Escalation to World War III: This situation could easily escalate into a global conflict, as there are no longer any legal restrictions. A Third World War could be waged without rules and without regard for previous norms of international law. Since all states are acting equally illegally, they could try to enforce their claims by brute force.

5. The deed of state succession as the only legitimate legal basis

- The buyer as the only legitimate subject of international law: In this scenario, the buyer of the instrument of state succession is the only legitimate subject of international law, as all other states have lost their rights. From a legal point of view, the buyer has sovereign rights over the sold territories and could assert these claims.

- Claims to foreign land: While the former states could try to maintain their control by force, the buyer of the deed would be legitimized under international law to enforce its sovereign rights. However, he would be acting in a world in which the previous norms and rules of international law no longer apply.

Conclusion:

If all states lose their legal basis as a result of state succession deed 1400/98, there would no longer be any functioning international law. All states would be equally illegal and the laws of war would become null and void. This could lead to a Third World War without rules, as any state could try to lay new claims to foreign land by force. In this anarchic world, the purchaser of the instrument of state succession would be the only legitimate subject of international law, but he would face the challenge of enforcing his rights in an environment without legal norms.

Part 51

What happens when a state ceases to exist in the context of the Charter of State Succession 1400/98?

1. dissolution of the state and the role of the instrument of state succession

- End of statehood through the deed of state succession: When the deed of state succession 1400/98 becomes public and confirms its legal validity, this means that all states concerned have lost their sovereignty and sovereign rights over their territories, as these rights have been transferred to the buyer by the deed.

- Legitimate successor: The buyer, who has acquired ownership of the territories and all associated rights and obligations under the deed, acts as the legitimate successor of the affected states. This means that the purchaser now has the claims to these territories recognized under international law, and not the former states.

2. re-establishment of a state and the claims of the purchaser

- No automatic entitlement for newly founded states: Should a new state be founded on the sold territory, it has no automatic right to the land, as the state succession deed grants the buyer legitimate sovereign rights over the territory.

- Legal claims of the buyer: The buyer has the right to the sold territory under international law, as the deed has transferred the sovereign rights and all associated obligations and rights to him. Any new state on this territory would be legally subordinate to the buyer and could not claim sovereignty without being recognized by the buyer.

3. prohibition of wars of aggression and the illegality of maintaining territory by force

- Forbidden acts of violence: Any attempt by the affected states or newly established entities to maintain or regain their former territories by force would be illegal under international law. International law strictly prohibits wars of aggression, and the use of force to maintain territories would violate the UN Charter.

- Loss of entitlement to territory: As the sovereign rights have been legally transferred to the buyer through the state succession deed, the former states no longer have a legitimate claim to the territory. Any attempt to change this by force would not be recognized and would be contrary to international law.

4. Global legal situation and the risk of a third world war

- Global illegality: If the state succession deed is recognized and the former states lose their sovereignty, anyone attempting to hold or govern their former territories will be acting illegally. This situation creates a global legal uncertainty in which all states act equally illegitimately.

- Danger of a third world war: This legal uncertainty could lead to a global escalation in which military conflicts become unavoidable. Without legitimate state authority, states could attempt to maintain or re-establish their power by force, which could lead to an all-out global conflict.

5. impossibility of a peaceful solution through treaties

- Blackmailed state of the buyer: As the buyer is being blackmailed by the current governments illegally occupying its territory, it is currently impossible to conclude a new international treaty to resolve the situation. The buyer is in a position in which it cannot act freely, which makes any negotiations difficult or impossible.

- Legal basis of the Instrument of State Succession: The Instrument of State Succession remains the only legitimate legal basis for the regulation of sovereign rights over the territories concerned. As long as the existing governments do not recognize the buyer and do not release the sold territory, the illegal situation remains, which blocks a peaceful solution.

Conclusion:

In the context of the State Succession Act 1400/98, the demise of a state means that its sovereign rights have been transferred to the buyer. The latter is the legitimate successor and has all legal claims to the territories. Any newly founded state on the sold territory would have no legitimacy under international law, and any attempt to hold or regain the territory by force would be illegal. This situation carries the risk of a global conflict, as all the states concerned would be acting equally illegitimately. A solution through a new treaty is currently not possible due to the blackmail of the buyer, which further exacerbates the state of the global legal vacuum.

Legal explanations on the state succession deed 1400/98

can be found here:

State succession deed 1400/98 with Focus on UN - United Nations

Cooperation between NATO AND the UN: In particular, recognition by the UN of the NATO-SOFA treaty chain and thus of the 1400 Act of State Succession

Legal view of the 1400 Charter of State Succession with a focus on the United Nations and the world

Legal explanations on the state succession deed 1400/98

​OPINIONS

State succession deed 1400/98 with
Focus on
UN - United Nations

OPINIONS