Timeline for What is the legal background for Russia's seat as a Permanent Member of UNSC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2023 at 22:36 | comment | added | Eugene | Don't forget that in addition to all the benefits of assuming the role of the USSR's successor, Russia also took on all of the USSR's debts($40B a huge amount of money at the time). This is why all successor republics raised no objections, they became independent with no debt. | |
| Oct 15, 2022 at 0:12 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2022 at 19:23 | comment | added | wrod | all 15 republics are successor states. Successor states are the ones inheriting the land of the predecessor state. RF is seen as a de facto continuator of the USSR. But I think its presence on the UNSC was initially one of the reasons for such belief. So this makes it a circular argument, which is often the case in politics when the facts become settled over a long period of time. Causes and effects get often intermingled in politics. | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 19:14 | comment | added | CDJB♦ | @wrod for sure - the CIS members were not empowered to change the UN Charter in any way. There was no explicit UNGA resolution as in the case of the PRC either. De facto, however, Russia is seen as the successor state of the USSR and it is under these circumstances that it took over its seat on the SC without objection. | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 19:08 | comment | added | wrod | From this description, it sounds like the Alma-Ata protocol endorsed RF's taking of the USSR seat. Because the signatories had no formal authority to make the designation. But the fact that there was no objection makes RF an acting occupant rather than the de jure occupant, does it not? | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 12:09 | history | answered | CDJB♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |