State continuity of the Baltic states

Part of a series on the
Occupation of the Baltic states
Baltic states Nazi Germany Soviet Union
Background Baltic–Soviet relations Non-aggression pacts Soviet–Estonian Soviet–Latvian Soviet–Lithuanian German–Estonian German–Latvian German–Lithuanian Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Soviet occupation in 1940 Mutual Assistance Treaties Soviet–Estonian Soviet-Latvian Soviet-Lithuanian Orzeł incident Ultimata to Estonia to Latvia to Lithuania People's Parliament Sovietization Deportations from Estonia from Latvia from Lithuania June deportation Welles Declaration
German occupation Estonia Occupation Resistance Holocaust Latvia Occupation Resistance Holocaust Lithuania Occupation Resistance Holocaust
Soviet re-occupation in 1944 Battle of Narva Baltic offensive Courland Pocket Guerrilla war in the Baltic states Latvian partisans Lithuanian partisans
Under Soviet rule Guerrilla war in the Baltic states Operation Priboi Operation Jungle Estonian SSR Latvian SSR Lithuanian SSR Territorial changes Baltic Way Singing Revolution Sąjūdis Tautas fronte Rahvarinne Congress of Estonia
State continuity Baltic diplomatic services (1940–91) Estonian Latvian Lithuanian Kersten Committee Helsinki Accords
Aftermath Estonia–Russia relations Latvia–Russia relations Lithuania–Russia relations Russians in Estonia Russians in Latvia Russians in Lithuania
v t e

The three Baltic countries, or the Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – are held to have continued as independent states under international law^[1] while under Soviet occupation from 1940 to 1991, as well as during the German occupation in 1941–1944/1945. The prevailing opinion accepts the Baltic thesis that the Soviet occupation was illegal, and all actions of the Soviet Union related to the occupation are regarded as contrary to international law in general and to the bilateral treaties between the USSR and the three Baltic countries in particular.^[2]

This legal continuity has been recognised by most Western powers and is reflected in their state practice.^[3] The application of the Stimson Doctrine by the Welles Declaration^[4] where a significant segment of the international community refused to grant formal approval for the 1940 Soviet conquest during World War II,^[5] the resistance by the Baltic peoples to the Soviet regime, and the uninterrupted functioning of rudimentary state organs in exile support the legal position that sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis (German: Annexionsbesetzung, lit. 'annexation occupation') lasted until the Soviet Union recognized the independence of the three countries in 1991.^[5] Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law.^[6][7]

The official position of Russia is a continuation of the Soviet position that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were not annexed by the Soviet Union but joined of their own accord in 1940.^[8] Russia insists that incorporation of the Baltic states gained international de jure recognition by the agreements made in the Yalta and Potsdam conferences and by the Helsinki accords.^[9][10] They have also argued that in accordance to the internal Soviet laws and constitution, restoration of independence was illegal and the Baltic republics could become newly created sovereign entities only via the secession laws of the USSR.^[11] According to this position, all previous treaties, such as the Treaty of Tartu,^[12] are invalidated, and all possible claims by Baltic states for monetary compensation^[which?] have no legal basis.^[9][10][13] This alternate thesis on continuity of the Baltic states and its related consequences has fueled a fundamental confrontation between Russia and the Baltic states.^[14][15]

The legal principle, ex injuria jus non oritur (law cannot arise from unjust acts), differs from the competing principle of ex factis jus oritur (the facts determine the law).^[3] On one hand, legal recognition of Baltic incorporation on the part of other sovereign nations outside the Soviet bloc was largely withheld based on the fundamental legal principle of ex injuria jus non oritur, since the annexation of the Baltic states was held to be illegal.^[16] On the other hand, de facto interruption of statehood^[17] due to foreign occupation for a period of fifty years^[3] did indeed occur, giving a place to the legal principle of ex factis jus oritur,^[3] as well as irrevocable territory and demographic changes that make the Baltic case much more complex than mere restitutio in integrum (a restoration of—in this case—territorial integrity).^[18]