How did Russia replace the USSR on the UN Security Council?

January 20, 2005 10:44 AM

The UN Charter still lists "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" as one of the permanent Security Council members. How was it decided that Russia alone would replace the USSR, and not some representative of all the ex-USSR nations? Was there a vote? Cause I can't find it.
posted by Pretty_Generic to law & government (6 comments total)

Here you go. Can't do much better than that for background anyway.
posted by loquax at 11:21 AM on January 20, 2005

Wikipedia entry states that "After the USSR broke up and then formally dissolved itself in 1991, the Russian Federation was treated as its successor."

The USSR wasn't really a union in the sense that the EU is, but rather a group of countries under the dominion of a strong central power, Russia. So when the "union" dissolved, the strong central power (which also happened to be by far the largest in terms of land mass and population), now the Russian Federation, took over the seat from the USSR.

Don't know why the UN charter hasn't yet been amended, though.
posted by googly at 11:22 AM on January 20, 2005

Specifically:

The remaining twelve republics, having in turn all proclaimed their independence by December 1991, then proceeded, first at the tripartite meeting of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (the new name of the former Byelorussia) held at Minsk on 8 December 1991, and subsequently at the meeting of eleven republics,8 held in Alma-Ata (the capital of Kazakhstan) on 21 December 1991, to declare that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist as a subject of international law and that they would henceforth constitute the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the preamble to the two declarations adopted in Minsk by the leaders of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, the three signatories stated that `the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence'.9 Likewise, the eleven participating republics at the Alma-Ata conference stated in the fifth operative paragraph of the first of five declarations adopted by them that `with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist'.10 Furthermore, in Article 1 of the fifth declaration, entitled `On UN Membership', the eleven signatories agreed that `Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council.'11

The rest of the site deals with the legal implications.
posted by loquax at 11:26 AM on January 20, 2005

This claim of the Russian Federation - made some three days (and possibly sixteen days) after the dissolution of the Soviet Union - that it was `continuing' the legal existence and hence the UN membership of the latter, must thus be considered - irrespective of its obvious political merits - as being seriously flawed from the legal point of view.

Cool, thanks.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:38 AM on January 20, 2005

loquax: Great article. Thanks.
posted by grouse at 2:33 PM on January 20, 2005

What an interesting question, and loquax's link is great.

In the absence of any objection, the delegation of the Russian Federation took over the Soviet seat in the UN General Assembly, in the Security Council and in other organs of the United Nations, with the appropriate changes of the name-plates and flag having been undertaken by the UN Secretariat. No new credentials were presented by Ambassador Vorontsov in his new capacity as the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation.

Who would ever have expected this, even if they foresaw the end of the USSR? Can you imagine the US, even a decade earlier, just accepting Russia's keeping the seat with no clear legal basis?
posted by languagehat at 3:43 AM on January 21, 2005