Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Community’s Reaction to the Soviet Annexation of the Baltic Republics: The Recognition Dilemma

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple viewpoints have been expressed regarding the international community’s reaction to the Soviet Union’s 1940 annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Some scholars assert that this incorporation was recognized by the overwhelming majority of states. Others disagree and argue that the absorption of the Baltic Republics was not recognized by the greater part of the international community. To address this contradiction, which has previously received almost no consideration, this article examines norms of international law governing the creation of title to territory acquired by the threat or use of force that were operative in 1940. For this purpose, it analyzes the traditional international law of conquest, the relevant provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Pact of Paris, as well as the international community’s reaction to territorial annexations effectuated from 1932 to 1940. The findings reveal that the attitude of the vast majority of countries towards the Baltic annexation—passive indifference, silence, and disinterest—does not fit into the categories of either ‘recognition’ or ‘non-recognition’. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to employ the terms ‘recognition’ and ‘non-recognition’ to characterize the response of the greater part of the international community to the incorporation of the Baltic Republics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Marek (1968), p. 415.

  2. Marek (1968), p. 412. See also Hough (1985), p. 481.

  3. Talmon (1998), p. 103.

  4. Rubanov (1963), p. 443. (Translation mine).

  5. Tichy (1992), p. 127.

  6. Dörr (1995), p. 350. (Translation mine).

  7. Editors (1975), p. 230.

  8. Hough (1985), p. 439.

  9. Grant (2001), p. 89.

  10. Briggs (1940), p. 72.

  11. Briggs (1940), p. 72. See also Williams (1926), pp. 31, 32, 35, 39, 41, 42; Editors (1954), pp. 275, 276; Baade (1957), p. 38.

  12. Wilson (1921), p. 64.

  13. Brownlie (1968), p. 63.

  14. Langer (1947), p. 42.

  15. General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy 1928, 94 LNTS 63.

  16. Wright (1933), p. 39.

  17. De Hoon (2015), p. 112.

  18. De Hoon (2015), p. 112.

  19. De Hoon (2015), p. 112.

  20. Langer (1947), p. 58.

  21. Langer (1947), p. 59.

  22. Langer (1947), pp. 57, 61–62; Marek (1968), pp. 173–179. It is true that Japan proclaimed no decree of annexation of Manchuria. However, as William Tung accurately observed, ‘The detachment of part of the territory of one state by another through conquest followed by the establishment of a puppet regime is really annexation under disguise’ (Tung (1968), p. 165).

  23. Langer (1947), pp. 61–62.

  24. Langer (1947), p. 62.

  25. Langer (1947), p. 63.

  26. Langer (1947), p. 66.

  27. Langer (1947), p. 68.

  28. Despite the language used in its operative part (‘it is incumbent upon the Members of the League of Nations’), the League Assembly resolution of 11 March 1932 cannot be said to create a legal duty of non-recognition of territorial conquest. In the words of James Brierly, ‘the Covenant confers no general authority on the League or on any of its organs to take action which will have the effect of creating obligations legally binding on its members […]’. Therefore, ‘an ordinary resolution of the Assembly […] is not a legislative act; it does not constitute a treaty between the members; it is […] a concordant declaration of wills […]. From the point of view of the individual member joining in it, its significance is that the member, through its delegates, has made a formal declaration of intention or policy’ (Brierly (1935), p. 160).

  29. Langer (1947), p. 133.

  30. Briggs (1940), p. 80; Langer (1947), p. 134.

  31. Dörr (1995), p. 325.

  32. Langer (1947), p. 135.

  33. Langer (1947), p. 135.

  34. Langer (1947), pp. 137–138, 151, 153. The vast majority of scholars share the opinion that de facto recognition is provisional, conditional, and liable to be withdrawn, while de jure recognition is final and absolute. See Lauterpacht (1948), pp. 332, 338, 348; Editors (1954), p. 264; Baade (1957), p. 61; Talmon (1998), p. 46.

  35. Langer (1947), p. 150.

  36. Langer (1947), pp. 156–157.

  37. Marek noted that ‘in the total absence of war there was no belligerent occupation’ (Marek (1968), p. 347).

  38. Marek (1968), p. 341. Herbert Wright characterized the outcome of this referendum as follows: ‘The very result of the plebiscite as announced, namely, 99.73 percent for to 0.27 against (!), is sufficient to indicate its untrustworthiness as an index of the real attitude of the Austrians, for such unanimity in human affairs is almost morally impossible, even on innocuous questions’ (Wright (1944), p. 14).

  39. Langer (1947), p. 159.

  40. Langer (1947), p. 159.

  41. Langer (1947), pp. 159–160.

  42. Briggs (1940), p. 80; Turns (2003), p. 129.

  43. On 16 March 1938, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax stated that ‘[n]othing short of war can put back the clock, and States-Members of the League are not prepared to go to war on this issue […]. His Majesty’s Government are therefore bound to recognise that the Austrian State has now been abolished as an international entity […]’ (HL Deb. 16 March 1938, vol. 108, col. 179–180).

  44. Langer (1947), p. 164; Dörr (1995), p. 329.

  45. Langer (1947), p. 173.

  46. Marek (1968), p. 343. It is true that on 1 November 1943, the USSR, the United Kingdom, and the United States jointly declared that they ‘regard the annexation imposed upon Austria […] as null and void’ (Langer (1947), p. 181). This declaration stands in stark contrast with the initial reaction of these countries to the Anschluss, and, in the words of Hans Baade, ‘could not unreasonably be regarded as a politically motivated ex post attempt to rectify history’ (Baade (1964), p. 504).

  47. Briggs (1940), p. 77; Langer (1947), p. 68.

  48. Marek (1968), pp. 302, 303; Langer (1947), p. 209.

  49. Langer (1947), pp. 209, 233; Marek (1968), pp. 291, 303, 325; Turns (2003), p. 129.

  50. Langer (1947), p. 221.

  51. Langer (1947), p. 221.

  52. Marek (1968), pp. 287, 288, 290.

  53. Marek (1968), p. 289.

  54. Turns (2003), p. 129. See also Briggs (1940), p. 80.

  55. Briggs (1940), p. 80.

  56. Langer (1947), pp. 245–247; Marek (1968), pp. 331–333.

  57. Langer (1947), p. 247.

  58. Langer (1947), p. 247; Marek (1968), p. 333.

  59. Langer (1947), pp. 259–261.

  60. Langer (1947), p. 262. See also Briggs (1940), p. 80; Brownlie (1968), p. 414; Turns (2003), p. 129.

  61. Langer (1947), p. 263. See also Brownlie (1968), p. 417.

  62. Briggs (1940), p. 79.

  63. Briggs (1940), p. 80.

  64. Briggs (1940), p. 80.

  65. Dörr (1995), p. 82. (Translation mine).

  66. Ronen (2011), p. 22. See also Editors (1954), p. 276; Baade (1957), pp. 39–40.

  67. For example, a group of Estonian historians contended that, in the autumn of 1939, ‘diplomatic quarters and the international community came to the conclusion that due to the pact [of mutual assistance] Estonia, as a matter of fact, lost its state sovereignty’ (Arjakas et al. (1990), p. 197). (Translation mine).

  68. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were admitted into the USSR as union republics by the decrees of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 3 August 1940, 5 August 1940, and 6 August 1940, respectively. The historical account presented in this paragraph is based on Marek (1968), pp. 378–381; Hough (1985), pp. 375–384; Mälksoo (2003), pp. 83–87.

  69. Ronen (2011), p. 22. (Emphasis in original). See also: Meissner (2001), p. 443; Ilmjärv (2005), p. 29.

  70. Mälksoo (2003), p. 164. (Emphasis added). See also Hough (1985), pp. 370, 405; Himmer (1992), pp. 253–254.

  71. Krieger (2000), p. 440. (Translation mine).

  72. Dörr (1995), p. 352. (Translation mine).

  73. Lauterpacht (1957), p. 50.

  74. Fenwick (1965), p. 170.

  75. Ilmjärv (2005), p. 34.

  76. Ilmjärv (2005), p. 44.

  77. Chubaryan (2008), p. 287. (Translation mine).

  78. Makarov (1941), p. 705. (Translation mine).

  79. Vitas (1989), p. 82. It is hard to see on what particular grounds Hough argues that ‘[t]he reaction of the world community to the Russian [sic] seizure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was swift and severe’ (Hough (1985), p. 391). Susan Himmer’s contention that ‘[w]orld reaction was strongly against the [Baltic] annexation’ is likewise hardly compatible with the actual response of the international community (Himmer (1992), p. 271).

  80. Langer (1947), pp. 263–264. Undine Bollow shares Langer’s opinion (Bollow (1993), p. 4). According to Robert Vitas, Welles ‘implied’ the application of non-recognition to the Baltic situation (Vitas (1989), p. 7).

  81. The Department of State Bulletin, no. 57, vol. 4, p. 48 (27 July 1940).

  82. Hyde (1947), p. 1534.

  83. Shaw (2008), p. 445. (Emphasis added).

  84. O’Connell (1965), p. 179.

  85. While Mart Kuldkepp contends that Sweden ‘officially’ recognized ‘the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR in 1940 as lawful’, he did not provide the precise wording of any official declaration recognizing the annexation (Kuldkepp (2022), p. 325). By contrast, Hough, Vaino Riismandel, and Vitas argue that Sweden never extended official recognition (Hough (1985), p. 440; Riismandel (1957), p. 64; Vitas (1989), p. 254).

  86. Hough (1985), pp. 441, 442, 443; Meissner (1956), p. 302; Vitas (1989), pp. 254, 255, 259.

  87. Vitas (1989), p. 252.

  88. Marek (1968), p. 408.

  89. Repečka (1950), pp. 329–330. Some scholars argue that certain countries tacitly recognized the annexation many years later. As Krieger posits, Spain ‘implicitly accepted the [Baltic] incorporation’ in 1977 by establishing diplomatic relations with the USSR without ‘reservations regarding the annexed territories’ (Krieger (2000), p. 443). (Translation mine). Mälksoo contends that the Finnish President’s visit to Estonia in 1964 could be interpreted as tacit recognition of the Baltic annexation. He further maintains that recognition ‘was also implied by the Shah of Iran’s visit in 1974, and by that of India’s prime minister in 1981 to the Estonian SSR […]’ (Mälksoo (2003), p. 122). To clarify, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi visited Estonia in 1972, while Indira Gandhi did so in 1982.

  90. Legal consequences for states of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16, at p. 46.

  91. Security Council Resolution 301 (1971) of 20 October 1971. For instance, the Security Council called upon all states to ‘abstain from sending diplomatic or special missions to South Africa that include the Territory of Namibia in their jurisdiction’.

  92. Ronen (2011), p. 19.

  93. Ronen (2011), pp. 19–20.

  94. Ronen (2011), p. 19.

  95. Langer (1947), p. 172.

  96. 137 F.2d 903 (2d Cir. 1943). Langer (1947), pp. 172–173.

  97. Ct. 1st Instance Rotterdam 30 December 1953, NJ 1954/769 (Lesser v. Rotterdamsche Bank). Editors (1956), p. 441.

  98. Ct. 1st Instance Rotterdam 30 December 1953, NJ 1954/769 (Lesser v. Rotterdamsche Bank). Editors (1956), p. 441.

  99. Hough (1985), p. 435.

  100. MacGibbon (1954), p. 182.

  101. MacGibbon (1954), p. 143.

  102. MacGibbon (1954), p. 182.

  103. MacGibbon (1954), p. 143.

  104. Langer (1947), p. v.

  105. Aron (1966), p. 108.

  106. HC Deb. 10 February 1947, vol. 433, col. 5.

  107. Talmon (1998), p. 103.

  108. Editors (1957), p. 126.

  109. Editors (1957), p. 127. As expounded in the preceding section of this article, official declarations by other states confirming and recognizing Soviet sovereignty over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were utterly superfluous. Adolf Hitler’s Germany, which did not oppose the annexation, acted accordingly and issued no statements acknowledging the Baltic absorption. Evidently, the German Foreign Office presented the absence of formal recognition by the Third Reich as indicative of the National Socialist government’s reluctance to endorse the Baltic incorporation. If indeed this was the interpretation espoused by the German Foreign Office, it must be noted that such an interpretation was flawed.

  110. Krieger (2000), p. 448. (Translation mine).

  111. Mälksoo (2003), p. 120.

  112. Hough (1985), p. 430.

  113. Hough (1985), p. 432.

  114. Mälksoo (2003), p. 135; Ilmjärv (2005), p. 66.

  115. Vitas (1989), p. 267.

  116. HC Deb. 1 May 1969, vol. 782, col. 1716.

  117. Schwarzenberger (1969), p. 47.

  118. Ilmjärv (2005), p. 66. See also Mälksoo (2003), p. 126; Krieger (2000), pp. 440, 454; Crawford (2007), pp. 703–704.

  119. Juda (1975), p. 279.

  120. Juda (1975), p. 279.

  121. Trapans (1994), p. 168. See also Grant (2001), p. 23.

  122. Waldren (1993), p. 23. (Emphasis in original).

  123. Grant (2001), p. 63. See also Bollow (1993), pp. 15, 21; Mälksoo (2003), pp. 130, 170.

  124. Vitas (1989), pp. 267–268.

  125. Vitas (1989), p. 184.

  126. Vitas (1989), p. 184.

  127. Hough (1985), p. 440.

  128. Hough (1985), p. 440.

  129. Hough (1985), p. 440.

  130. Grazin (1991), p. 1407.

  131. Bollow (1993), p. 22. (Translation mine).

  132. Mälksoo (2003), p. 203.

  133. Himmer (1992), pp. 254–255.

References

  • Arjakas K, Arumäe H, Arumäe T, Helme R (1990) Ot pakta Molotova-Ribbentropa do dogovora o bazah. Dokumenty i materialy [From the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to the agreement on bases. Documents and materials]. Periodika, Tallinn

  • Aron R (1966) Peace and war: a theory of international relations. Doubleday & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baade H (1957) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Baltischen Staaten. Ger Yearb Int Law 7:34–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Baade H (1964) Nullity and avoidance in public international law: a preliminary survey and a theoretical orientation. Indiana Law J 39:497–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollow U (1993) Die baltische Frage in der internationalen Politik nach 1945. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brierly J (1935) The meaning and legal effect of the Resolution of the League of Nations of March 11, 1932. Br Yearb Int Law 16:159–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs H (1940) Non-recognition of title by conquest and limitations on the doctrine. Proc Am Soc Int Law 34:72–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1968) International law and the use of force by states. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubaryan A (2008) Kanun tragedii: Stalin i mezhdunarodnyj krizis: Sentjabr’ 1939–ijun’ 1941 goda [The eve of tragedy: Stalin and the international crisis: September of 1939–June of 1941]. Nauka, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2007) The creation of states in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Hoon M (2015) The law and politics of the crime of aggression. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

  • Dörr O (1995) Die Inkorporation als Tatbestand der Staatensukzession. Duncker und Humbolt, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Editors (1954) Non-recognition: a reconsideration. Univ Chic Law Rev 22:261–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors (1956) American cases on nationality. Am J Int Law 50:439–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors (1957) American cases on nationality. Am J Int Law 51:126–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors (1975) Australian practice in international law 1974–1975. Aust Yearb Int Law 6:187–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick C (1965) International law. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Norwalk

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant T (2001) United States practice relating to the Baltic States, 1940–2000. Baltic Yearb Int Law 1:23–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazin I (1991) The international recognition of national rights: the Baltic States’ case. Notre Dame Law Rev 66:1385–1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmer S (1992) The achievement of independence in the Baltic States and its justifications. Emory Int Law Rev 6:253–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough W (1985) The annexation of the Baltic States and its effect on the development of law prohibiting forcible seizure of territory. NY Law School J Int Comp Law 6:301–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde C (1947) International law. Chiefly as interpreted and applied by the United States, vol 1. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilmjärv M (2005) International reverberation to incorporation of Baltic States by Soviet Union in summer 1940 and later. Acta Historica Tallinnensia 9:29–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juda L (1975) United States’ nonrecognition of the Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic States: politics and law. J Baltic Stud 6:272–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger H (2000) Das Effektivitätsprinzip im Völkerrecht. Duncker und Humbolt, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuldkepp M (2022) Baltic liberation first-hand: Sweden’s pro-Baltic foreign policy shift and Swedish diplomatic reporting in 1989–1991. Scand J History 47:325–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer R (1947) Seizure of territory: the Stimson doctrine and related principles in legal theory and diplomatic practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1948) Recognition in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1957) International law report, vol 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGibbon I (1954) The scope of acquiescence in international law. Br Yearb Int Law 31:143–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarov A (1941) Die Eingliederung der baltischen Staaten in die Sowjet-Union. ZaöRV 10:682–707

    Google Scholar 

  • Mälksoo L (2003) Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marek K (1968) Identity and continuity of states in public international law. Droz, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner B (1956) Die Sowjetunion, die baltischen Staaten und das Völkerrecht. Verlag Politik und Wirtschaft, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Meissner B (2001) The occupation of the Baltic States from a present-day perspective. In: Jundzis T (ed) The Baltic States at historical crossroads. Latvian Academy of Sciences, Riga, pp 437–451

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D (1965) International law, vol 1. Steven & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Repečka J (1950) Der gegenwärtige völkerrechtliche Status der baltischen Staaten, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der diplomatischen Vorgeschichte der Eingliederung dieser Staaten in die Sowjet-union. Dissertation zur Erlangung des rechtswissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen

  • Riismandel V (1957) The continued legal existence of the Baltic States. Baltic Rev 12:48–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen Y (2011) Transition from illegal regimes under international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rubanov A (1963) Primenenie za rubezhom nasledstvennogo prava respublik Sovetskoy Pribaltiki [Application of the inheritance law of the Soviet Baltics Republics abroad]. Soviet Yearb Int Law 441–461

  • Schwarzenberger G (1969) Foreign investments and international law. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (1998) Recognition of governments in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tichy H (1992) Two recent cases of state succession—an Austrian perspective. Austrian J Public Int Law 45:117–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapans J (1994) The West and the recognition of the Baltic States: 1919 and 1991. A study of the politics of the Major Powers. J Baltic Stud 25:153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung W (1968) International law in an organizing world. Crowell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Turns D (2003) The Stimson doctrine of non-recognition: its historical genesis and influence on contemporary international law. Chin J Int Law 2:105–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitas R (1989) U.S. nonrecognition of the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. Dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago

  • Waldren S (1993) Lithuania: the impact of the Stimson doctrine. T. U. U. Lithuanian Studies Society, Sandy Bay

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J (1926) Sovereignty, seisin and the League. Br Yearb Int Law 7:24–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson G (1921) The first year of League of Nations: with the Covenant of the League of Nations in an appendix. Little, Brown and Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright Q (1933) The meaning of the Pact of Paris. Am J Int Law 27:39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright H (1944) Attitude of the United States toward Austria. Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article. I have also greatly benefited from the comments provided by the participants of the workshop held at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs on 6 December 2022. Any mistakes or omissions are entirely my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Research Scientist, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA

    Evgeny Tikhonravov

Authors
  1. Evgeny Tikhonravov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evgeny Tikhonravov.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tikhonravov, E. The International Community’s Reaction to the Soviet Annexation of the Baltic Republics: The Recognition Dilemma. Neth Int Law Rev 70, 251–272 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00242-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00242-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation