State as a person.

Torakx

To clear up any misconceptions, I do not make the claim the state is a person.
I have that from an Irish Barrister who wrote a book called Principles of Irish Law.
In there it says the state was made a juristic person, around 1970 or so, BYRNE V IRELAND I think was the case.

Here are some definitions I found at the top of a google search for juristic person.

Definition of juristic person. : a body of persons, a corporation, a partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties —called also artificial person, conventional person, fictitious person.

Here we see that we are all seen as juristic persons as well(see conventional person)
For those who didn't know what juristic means, as far as I know it means recognized in law.
If I have it right, then I am(or have access to) a person and the state is also a person.
Pretty straight forward so far I hope.

My question or query is in relation to the state being a juristic person and the obligations it has to its contracts, as well as the obligations of it's citizens.

For example, the state and person called IRELAND seems to have signed some contracts which embedded it into the European Union.
But what if the citizens all left the state?
Say half of the country or 60% of citizens left the state and started a corporate entity called EIRE NUA
Say they create a mandate or constitution for those in that corporation of persons.
And say they now outnumber the amount of citizens in the original state/person they used to be connected to.
Do all the contracts transfer over as well? What about all those debts?

Is it the case that IRELAND the person is responsible for IRELANDS debts and contracts. Not the civil servants or public(agents of the state?).

Is the new person EIRE NUA at all responsible for the debts of IRELAND?
Is this person EIRE NUA with 60% of the population now in position, in some regards at least, to be changed to the nation state? Taking with it only those contracts and agreements made by that person EIRE NUA?

I think what I might be looking for is the basis for which a state is considered to represent the people of the land.
When the majority of the people of a land mass commit citizenship to a new state, what right does the minority have to argue it's legitimacy?

I understand it's obviously not so simple as all that.
But this is the simplest way I can convey the idea and query.
We did change IRELAND to a republic at one stage right?
Or did we create a new person for that act?

Anyway, it's a thought I had a few days ago and I'm curious of the road blocks and fundamental issues that might come up.

Or just any other similar ideas or real world situations, where this may already have been tested.
Any country that changed its name might be a useful example too.
I'm not sure really...