Talk:Succession of states

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Succession of states article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

USSR/Russian Federation and Yugoslavia/Serbia & Montenegro examples

How are they "in sharp contrast"? If I understand the passage correctly, the UN recognized the Russian Federation as the successor state to the USSR because the it contained the majority of the former USSR's population and territory, but they didn't recognize Serbia & Montenegro as successor because they contained less than half of the population and territory of the former Yugoslavia.

If that's the case, then the two decisions aren't really in contrast because the referenced consideration (population and/or territory) is consistent. It only seems like a contrast because the first decision is basically 'yes' and the other is 'no'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekker451 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the matter of majority/minority had so much to do with it. The difference was rather, that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was made peacefully and all the states of that union agreed that Russia should take over most of the matters which had been the USSR's, while Yugoslavia went down in war and disagreement. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 15:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the former Soviet republics agreed, as shown by Ukraine's continued disputing of the validity of Russia's claim. — Red XIV ^(talk) 21:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasde clarify the grammar in the leade

"A successor state often acquires a new international legal personality, which is distinct from a continuing state, also known as a continuator or historical heir, which despite change to its borders retains the same legal personality and possess all its existing rights and obligations (such as a rump state)"

Please clarify where the second "which" is attached to. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia - Czechia

From the article, ‘’ An example of a universal state succession is the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Neither part claimed any continuity: both the Czech Republic and Slovakia were new successor states.’’ - Is this accurate? In sports, notably football and ice hockey, Czechia is considered a successor state to Czechoslovakia in that it has inherited the previous state’s competitive record, whilst Slovakia started from scratch. This is the same situation as USSR-Russia and Yugoslavia-Serbia. 2A02:C7C:F0D5:F000:7156:E67E:3806:5358 (talk) 2A02:C7C:F0D5:F000:7156:E67E:3806:5358 (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]