Lighthouse Case (France v Greece)

Facts

• The Ottoman Empire granted a French company a concession to operate lighthouses along parts of its coastline
• Following the Balkan Wars, the territory passed to Greece
• France argued that Greece was bound by the concession as successor to the Ottoman Empire in respect of that territory
• Greece argued the clean slate principle: as a new state, it was not automatically bound by predecessor treaties
• The concession was specifically linked to the physical territory and its coastal infrastructure

Issue

1. Whether a successor state is bound by a localised concession attached to specific territory granted by the predecessor sovereign.

Held

• Greece was bound by the lighthouse concession
• The obligation was localised: attached to the territory itself, not a personal obligation of the predecessor state
• Localised obligations are an exception to the clean slate principle
• They run with the territory and bind any successor regardless of general succession rules
• This principle was later codified in Article 12 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (VCST) 1978

Ratio Decidendi

Obligations of a dispositive or localised character, which attach to specific territory rather than to the state as a legal person, pass automatically to the successor state upon transfer of that territory. The rationale is that such obligations are inseparable from the territory itself, analogous to servitudes in private law. This operates as an exception to the general clean slate rule for newly independent states.