This Content Is Only For Subscribers
When a State leaves a political and economic union to reassert its status as an independent nation, it doesn’t start with a blank slate in international relations. Rather, it enters a complex world of existing treaties, agreements, and international obligations. How a newly independent Texas will navigate this transition is governed by a principle known as “treaty succession” — and it’s something every Texan who supports TEXIT needs to understand.
Treaty succession isn’t some obscure legal concept that only interests academics and diplomats. It’s a fundamental process that will determine Texas’s place in the world from day one of independence. It will affect our economy, our borders, our security, and our sovereignty. In short, it will shape the future Republic of Texas in ways both obvious and subtle.
What Is Treaty Succession?
Treaty succession refers to the process by which a newly independent state inherits or rejects the treaty obligations of its predecessor. When a state gains independence, there are hundreds — sometimes thousands — of existing international agreements that could potentially apply to it. Treaty succession provides the framework for determining which obligations continue and which do not.
This isn’t merely theoretical for Texas. The United States currently has over 10,000 treaties and international agreements in force. These range from major multilateral treaties like the United Nations Charter to bilateral agreements on specific issues like taxation, trade, or resource management. All of these would potentially be subject to treaty succession when Texas reasserts its independence.
The Two Doctrines: Clean Slate vs. Continuity
There are two primary doctrines in treaty succession, and the tension between them is at the heart of how an independent Texas will establish its international legal position.
The “clean slate” doctrine (also called tabula rasa) holds that a new state begins with a blank slate regarding treaty obligations. Under this approach, Texas would not automatically be bound by the treaties of the United States but would have the freedom to determine which treaty relationships it wishes to maintain. This doctrine prioritizes state consent and sovereignty — principles dear to every Texan who values our right to self-government.
The clean slate doctrine gained prominence during the decolonization period of the 1960s and 1970s, when newly independent states sought to escape unfavorable treaty regimes established during colonial rule. While Texas’s situation is different from those former colonies, the principle remains powerful: a people exercising their right of self-determination should not be automatically bound by obligations they did not freely choose.
The competing “universal succession” doctrine (also called the continuity doctrine) holds that successor states automatically inherit the treaty rights and obligations of their predecessors. This approach prioritizes legal stability in international relations over the sovereign choice of the new state. Under this doctrine, Texas would be bound by all treaties that currently apply to it as part of the United States, unless specifically negotiated otherwise.
The Legal Framework
The most significant attempt to codify rules on treaty succession is the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, which entered into force in 1996. However, the United States is not a party to this convention — a fact that gives Texas greater flexibility in determining its approach to treaty succession.
The Vienna Convention establishes different rules for different categories of state succession:
- Newly Independent States (primarily former colonies): These states benefit from the clean slate doctrine and are not automatically bound by the treaties of their former colonial power.
- Separation or Secession: When a portion of a state’s territory separates to form a new state, the Vienna Convention provides that treaties continue in force for both the predecessor and successor states, unless agreed otherwise or incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
Since the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, and given Texas’s unique historical status as a formerly independent republic, we have stronger arguments for applying the clean slate doctrine rather than accepting automatic continuity of all U.S. treaty obligations.
Real-World Examples
Treaty succession isn’t just legal theory. It’s been applied repeatedly in recent history as new states have emerged. These examples provide valuable lessons for how Texas can approach its own treaty succession.
When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Russia was recognized as the primary successor state to Soviet treaty obligations, while other former Soviet republics took varied approaches. The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) successfully argued they were not successor states but restored states that had been illegally annexed, allowing them to reject Soviet-era treaties they found problematic.
More recently, South Sudan’s 2011 independence from Sudan offers another instructive case. South Sudan did not automatically assume all of Sudan’s treaty obligations but indicated it would not recognize certain agreements — such as the 1959 Nile Waters Agreement — that it viewed as contrary to its interests.
These precedents demonstrate that newly independent states have considerable latitude in determining which treaty obligations they will accept, especially when supported by strong legal and historical arguments.
Water Rights and the 1944 Treaty
One treaty of particular importance to Texas is the 1944 Water Treaty between the United States and Mexico, which governs water rights in the Rio Grande and Colorado River. This treaty requires Mexico to deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of water to the U.S. over a five-year cycle from the Rio Grande, while the U.S. delivers 1.5 million acre-feet annually from the Colorado River to Mexico.
As of April 2025, Mexico is behind by approximately 1.3 million acre-feet, causing significant water shortages for Texas, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley. The Federal Government’s failure to effectively enforce this treaty has hurt Texas farmers and communities, demonstrating yet again how the interests of Texans are not prioritized in Washington.
Under treaty succession principles, an independent Texas would have strong grounds to claim the benefits of this treaty as it directly affects Texas territory and resources. However, we would also have the opportunity to negotiate improvements to the treaty that better protect Texas water rights. Without the bureaucratic entanglements of the Federal system, Texas could enforce compliance more efficiently and directly, prioritizing the needs of Texans rather than subordinating them to broader federal political considerations.
Opportunities for an Independent Texas
Treaty succession presents tremendous opportunities for Texas to craft an international legal position that serves our unique needs and interests. By starting from a position that we are not automatically bound by all U.S. treaties, we can strategically choose which agreements to maintain, which to renegotiate, and which to reject entirely.
For beneficial multilateral agreements — such as those governing international mail delivery, air travel, or telecommunications — Texas can declare continuity to ensure uninterrupted services. For trade agreements, we can maintain advantageous arrangements while seeking to improve terms that don’t serve Texas’s economic interests. For treaties that impose burdensome regulations or restrict our sovereignty, we can apply the clean slate doctrine and decline to be bound.
This selective approach allows Texas to craft an international legal framework tailored to our specific geographic, economic, and strategic circumstances rather than accepting a one-size-fits-all approach designed in Washington for all 50 states regardless of their individual needs.
Moreover, as an independent nation, Texas would gain the right to negotiate and conclude our own treaties directly with other nations. We could establish trade agreements that prioritize our agricultural products, energy resources, and manufacturing capabilities. We could form border security arrangements with Mexico that address Texas’s specific concerns rather than being subordinated to federal immigration policies. We could enter into diplomatic relations with nations that share our values and economic interests.
Sovereignty and Negotiation
The process of treaty succession doesn’t happen automatically — it requires diplomatic engagement and negotiation. An independent Texas would need to declare its position on treaty succession and engage with the United States, Mexico, and the broader international community to establish our treaty relationships.
While these negotiations may be complex, they also provide Texas with leverage to secure favorable terms. The United States and other nations have strong incentives to maintain stable relations with Texas given our robust economy, strategic geographic position, and abundant natural resources. This gives us significant bargaining power to secure treaty arrangements that serve Texan interests.
Even as to the United States, Texas would negotiate from a position of strength. The U.S. would want continued access to Texas energy resources, ports, and markets, providing leverage to ensure fair treatment of Texans living abroad, protection of Texas assets, and other key interests during the transition to independence.
Preparing for Independence
For TEXIT supporters, understanding treaty succession is practical preparation for the day Texas reasserts its independence. The more thoroughly we understand these principles now, the more effectively we can implement them when the time comes.
This means studying the treaties currently binding the United States that affect Texas interests. It means developing frameworks for evaluating which treaties serve Texas and which do not. It means building relationships with other nations that could support Texas’s positions during treaty succession. And it means educating fellow Texans about how independence will strengthen, not weaken, our international position.
An independent Texas will have the sovereignty and international legal standing to advance our interests directly on the world stage. We will not be isolated or cut off from global systems — we will be empowered to engage with them on our own terms.
Final Analysis
Treaty succession may seem like a complex legal issue, but its implications are straightforward and profound: When Texas reasserts independence, we will have the opportunity to select the international obligations that serve our interests while declining those that do not. This is not a burden but a tremendous opportunity to custom-design Texas’s position in the international community.
The self-determination we seek through TEXIT extends beyond domestic policy to international relations. Treaty succession is the mechanism by which we will exercise that self-determination globally, crafting a network of international agreements that reflect Texan values and priorities rather than federal compromises that too often sacrifice Texas interests.
As we advance toward independence, understanding treaty succession becomes increasingly important for all TEXIT supporters. Knowledge is power, and in this case, it’s the power to shape the international legal framework of the Republic of Texas from its very first day of independence.
Texas will again lift its head and stand among the nations — not as an isolated entity but as a sovereign republic engaging confidently with the international community through treaties of our own choosing. That is the promise of TEXIT, and treaty succession is one of the key tools by which we will fulfill it.
