Hacker News Reader

Comment by oofabz | Hacker News Reader

Russia is the legitimate successor state of the Soviet Union. The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true. When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession. They did, recognizing Russia as the successor. Yugoslavia followed the same procedure, although they came to a more complex agreement with multiple successors.

View on HN

There's a (far right) movement in Germany that believes the current Germany is not the successor of the Third Reich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Germany does into many legal details but it can be similar summaries as: yes of course it's the successor.

> The article implies that the correct procedure for succession was not followed, but this is not true.

Based on what text in the Charter?

> When a country splits up, as the USSR did, the legal precedent is for all of the resulting states to come to an agreement on succession.

“Legal precedent” means something was challenged and ruled on by a court or similar adjudicative body prior to the time relevant to the breakup of the USSR; please cite the case? In any case, the objection is not based on “legal precedent”, but on the express text of the Charter.

(Also, the consensus-of-successors approach you describe is not the practical precedent at the UN; other split-ups that do not leave the original entity intact but with smaller territory have had the UN seat lapse and the new states separately admitted. Of course, none of those have held permanent UNSC seats; the breakup of the USSR was a sui generis case for which there really was no precedent, legal or practical, in that respect.)

Then where's the evidence to prove this? That's specifically what Sydorenko is saying doesn't appear to exist, or if it does, is being kept secret for unclear reasons.

>Then where's the evidence to prove this?

The behavior of every nation in the UN over the last 30 years which has accepted them as such on the Security Council?

There's a difference between acceptance and formal admittance.

No there isn't, the UN has recognized their Security Council votes as legitimate for 30 years, so there is no argument.

While certainly there are some institutions where an error allowed to persist for a specified duration becomes irreversible, I see no argument that there is such a rule applicable to the UN issue at hand.

The argument is clear, if any country on the Security Council thought Russia to not be the legitimate successor to the USSR on the Security Council then they would have raised the issue. Not only was it accepted then, its' been accepted for 30 years.

Only now do you have some idiots on social media trying to start WW3 by suggesting they be removed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com