Other political entities, which approach the states from a legal point of view, cannot be bypassed, as long as they have a significant role in the practice of international law. According to some, they are internationalized territories, according to others – free cities, according to third free cities and free territories. Although my opinion is definitely not very competent, I share the third view, because it seems to me that there is a significant difference in the definition of a free city and a free territory. One category includes Krakow, Danzig, Tangier and Jerusalem, and others. “Saar and Trieste.” In principle, the regime in Jerusalem and Tangier is close, but does not overlap with that of the free city. Furthermore, in the cases of Jerusalem and Trieste, the envisaged form of specific legal personality is not implemented at all, but remains enshrined in the relevant drafts. Due to the bloody clashes between Palestine and Israel over the holy city, the envisaged agreements are violated too often.
Historically, free cities appeared in the Middle Ages / Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Regensburg / with great independence, even to conclude political and economic alliances / Hansa /. Typical representatives of this type of subjects in the context of the modern doctrine of International Law appear later. Krakow was designated a free city according to the decision of the Congress of Vienna / General Act of 09.06.1815 /. The status of the city and district is a “free, independent and perfectly neutralized city”, under the auspices of Russia, Austria and Prussia, receives its constitution / approved by them. Joined Austria in 1846. Danzig / Gdansk / was established on the basis of the provisions of Articles 110-108 of the Peace of Versailles of June 28, 1919. According to them, the UN received the right to appoint a commissioner and monitor the observance of his status, and Poland controlled his international relations (the powers were enshrined in a treaty between Poland and Danzig from 1920-21). On 04.06.1922 The “Constitution of the Free State” was adopted. except for the restrictions arising from the special relations with the League of Nations and Poland, and since 1945 it has been finally included in the composition of Poland.
On 18.12.1923 the first convention on the status of Tangier was signed, declaring it internationalized and with permanent neutrality. It receives legislative and administrative autonomy, with the exception of maintaining diplomatic relations, which are mediated by the French Commissioner-General, but this applies not only to the city but also to the whole of Morocco / Art. 5 of the Treaty of Fes-1912 /.
With the proclamation of Morocco’s independence, the question of Tangier’s return to its jurisdiction was raised and a protocol was signed on July 5, 1956 in Rabat between Morocco and the International Control Committee, which provided for the abolition of the “special regime”. On October 29, 1956, at the Fedal Conference, a decision was made to reintegrate the area into the Kingdom of Morocco.
One of the hotspots at the moment and one of the main problems in international relations is the city of Jerusalem in the Middle East. After the PSV, together with the entire territory of Palestine under the mandate of Great Britain. Upon the adoption of the resolution of the UN General Assembly of 29.11.1947. for the establishment in the region of two states – Arab and Jewish – the fact was taken into account that as the center of 3 world religions / Christianity, Deism and Islam / the accession of Jerusalem to any of them is unjustified. Therefore, the opinion for its separation as an independent administrative unit is argued. During the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1948. this proves impossible; a similar failure has the experience based on Art. 81 of the UNU – the city to be placed under the care, but not of a single country or group of countries, but by the UN. With the war of 1967. Palestine falls under Israeli occupation. Subsequently, the Palestinian Authority was formed, but the resistance against Israel for the separation of Palestine / led by the established in 1964. Organization for the Liberation of Palestine, with an unchanging leader since 1969. – Yasser Arafat / as a separate state continues to this day with the firm intention of making Jerusalem the Palestinian capital.
The group of internationalized territories includes the Saar and Trieste. The Saarland is of great economic importance and is disputed between France and Germany. At the referendum on 13.01. 1935 its inhabitants declare their accession to Germany. At the London meeting of 02.1948. France received “administrative rule over the Saar”, but in a referendum held on October 23, 1955, it was decided to return it to Germany. Trieste was an international legal problem until 1954, when it was finally resolved by dividing its surroundings between Italy and Yugoslavia, and its international legal personality was never de facto realized and remained provided only in international agreements.
These territories are not independent subjects of International Law, but only state-like communities with varying degrees of autonomy. The exercise of real power, including international communication, is entrusted to one or a group of states (Saar, Krakow, Tangier), to an international organization and state (Danzig) or only to an international organization in the person of a delegated representative (Trieste, Jerusalem). There is a very limited contractual capacity (with the exception of Danzig), as well as a complete impossibility to join international organizations and maintain independent diplomatic relations. The specific subjects of International Law thus created cannot terminate their international regime on their own, as it is the result of an agreement in which the “free city” or “free territory” does not participate independently, resp. it cannot use the recognized tools to derogate from international obligations.
The emergence of this category of subjects of international law is the result of political and military-strategic compromises. Krakow was “separated” so as not to fall into Russian or Austrian possessions in the next partition of Poland, and Danzig, so as not to be included in either Poland or East Prussia. Tangier is directly opposite Gibraltar, which belongs to Britain, and its inclusion in the French or Spanish zone of protectorate in Morocco would call into question British control over the “entrance to the Mediterranean.” Trieste was not handed over to Yugoslavia, but could not remain under the control of WWII-defeated Italy. The Saar is close to the French border, but there is no historical reason to join France like Alsace and Lorraine. Falling Jerusalem under exclusive Arab or Israeli rule would lead to the insurmountable religious and political contradictions that currently exist. However, these compromises are not able to solve the permanent problems, which is why some of the international legal regimes are not implemented at all, and others naturally die out or are transformed by the change of geopolitical realities.
A similar problem exists with the place and role of Berlin immediately after WWII, with some German authors such as T. Gizeh, M. Drach and von Kreuzer arguing that West Berlin was a kind of “third German state”, but the United States, France and Britain defended the occupation. its status, confirmed at the Paris Conference in 1954. and the Declaration of the three powers of 23.10.1954. The Soviet note from 27.11.1958 proposes that West Berlin be transformed into an independent political unit, with the characteristics of a “neutral free city” whose status is guaranteed by the four Great Powers and the two German states. USA through the Memorandum of DD of 19.12.1958. refuses to modify the previous regime. On 03.09.1971 the Quadrilateral Agreement is signed, which regulates mainly functional problems and not the status of West Berlin. In Part II, paragraph “C” of the Basic Agreement and in Annex 2 thereto, it is not an integral part of the FRG. There may be signs of passive legation, but at the same time the admission of foreign diplomatic (rather quasi-diplomatic) and consular representatives is not the result of a sovereign will, but is by virtue of an international agreement in which Western Begley is not participant. Examples of international legal capacity are the agreement signed between the Senate of Western Begley and the Government of the GDR to facilitate and improve travel and visits and to settle the issue of border enclaves by exchanging territories / both of 20.12.1971 /, but they are executive international treaties because they are based on the provisions of the Quadrilateral Agreement itself. Therefore, an independent contractual capacity cannot be justified, but only a limited one.
It is clear from the statement that West Berlin has a number of characteristics of “free cities”, but it cannot be equated to them, the main reason for this is the existence of a post-war occupation administration, which is located in it on the basis of the act of full and unconditional surrender of Germany in WWII. In conjunction with others. previous or subsequent international instruments. Therefore, in terms of terminology, it is most acceptable to consider the proposal as a “separate political unit”, which has the character of a “state-like community between an occupied and a free city”.
