Russia Takes Over the Soviet Union's Seat at the United Nations

Yehuda Z. Blum ¹

Full text available: PDF format ^*

I. Background

The recent disintegration of the former Soviet Union and its splintering into more than a dozen independent States has confronted the international community with a host of legal problems. Among these is the question of the assumption by Russia of the Soviet Union's seat in the United Nations, including the Soviet permanent seat in the UN Security Council.² This note is devoted to a legal analysis of these aspects of the transformation, in December 1991, of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Prior to the upheavals of 1991, the Soviet Union consisted of fifteen republics of which two - the Ukraine and Byelorussia - were original members of the United Nations.³ As one of the Sponsoring Powers of the San Francisco Conference (April-June 1945) that established the United Nations, the USSR also became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.⁴ Of the fifteen Republics, Russia was by far the largest and most populous.⁵

Following the failed coup d'état in Moscow in August 1991, the independence of the three Baltic republics of the Soviet Union (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) was recognized by a large number of States, including most of the western European countries and the United States. Bowing to the inevitable, on 6 September 1991, the State Council of the Soviet Union released these three republics from its ranks and recognized their independence.⁶ On 17 September 1991, they were admitted to the United Nations.⁷

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'.<sup>9</sup> 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 fate of the Soviet Union was finally sealed on 25 December 1991 with the resignation of its President, Mikhail S. Gorbachev.¹² One day earlier, on 24 December 1991, the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the United Nations, Ambassador Y. Vorontsov, transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a letter from the President of the Russian Federation, Boris N. Yeltsin, stating that:

the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name `Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations.¹³

The Secretary-General thereupon circulated Mr. Yeltsin's request with Ambassador Vorontsov's cover letter among the UN membership, adding that he had `informed the President of the General Assembly and of the Security Council of these letters, as they relate to matters of interest to all organs and organizations of the United Nations system...'¹⁴

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. On 31 January 1992 Russian President Yeltsin himself was in the Russian Federation's seat in the Security Council during the `summit meeting' of the Council attended by heads of state and government.¹⁵

In addition to Russia, two other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Ukraine and Belarus) had already been, as mentioned above, members of the United Nations.¹⁶ The remaining eight members of the Commonwealth of Independent States were admitted to the United Nations on 2 March 1992.¹⁷ Georgia was admitted to the UN on 31 July 1992, under General Assembly resolution A/46/241.

Let us now examine the legal problems arising in connection with the foregoing facts.

^* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems.

1 Holder of the Hersch Lauterpacht Chair in International Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

2 Similar membership problems are likely to arise with regard to Yugoslavia where, as of the time of writing (May 1992), four of the six constituent republics of that country - namely, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia - have proclaimed their independence and, with the exception of the latter, have been admitted, on 22 May 1992, to the United Nations (The New York Times, 23 May 1922, A4, col. 1), thus leaving only Serbia and Montenegro as claimants of the continuing existence of Yugoslavia.
On 27 April 1992, Serbia and Montenegro proclaimed the establishment of a new and truncated Yugoslavia, comprising the territory (102,000 square kilometres) and population (10.5 million) of those two republics, as compared with 256,000 square kilometres and a population of 23 million of the old Yugoslavia. Under its new Constitution, the country preserves the name of Yugoslavia and its flag (without the red star of the communist era [The New York Times, 28 April 1992, Al, col. 3]). `Serbian officials say the new Yugoslavia plans to claim the international privileges of its predecessor, including ... membership in ... the United Nations.' (The New York Times, 13 April 1992, A1, col. 1). However, the United States and the European Community have withheld recognition of `the Serbian-Montenegrin Yugoslavia' partly in protest against the Serbs' offensive in Bosnia-Herzegovina (The New York Times, 29 April 1992, A4, col. 5) and the Permanent Representative of the US to the UN even questioned the UN membership status of the `so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' (The New York Times, 23 May 1922, A4, col. 1), without, however, formally challenging its right to occupy the Yugoslav seat.
International recognition of Macedonia has so far been withheld due to Greece's objection, on historical grounds, to the use of the name `Macedonia' by the new State (The New York Times, 7 May 1992, A7, col. 3).

3 Their UN membership made little sense prior to 1991 from the legal point of view. Since the USSR itself (incorporating as it did also the Ukraine and Byelorussia) was considered a subject of international law and was a member of the United Nations, there was no legal justification for the UN membership of any of its constituent republics, just as none of the states of the United States ever sought or acquired UN membership. If, on the other hand, the Ukraine and Byelorussia were considered independent nations for the purpose of UN membership, then all the other constituent republics of the USSR - but not the Soviet Union itself - should have been considered as subjects of international law and as such should have been admitted to the UN. However, political rather than legal considerations carried the day: US President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill, in an effort to allay the suspicions of Soviet Premier Stalin that the future international organization would be totally dominated by the western powers, consented at the Yalta summit conference of February 1945 to the UN membership of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, thus assuring the Soviet Union of three votes in the UN General Assembly. For a criticism of the situation thus created, see Hazard, `Soviet Republics in International Law', in R. Bernhardt (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Instalment 10 (1987) 418, 420-3 (including references).

4 See Article 23(1) of the UN Charter.

5 The Russian republic's territory (17,075 million square kilometres) constituted 76% of the total territory of 22.4 million square kilometres of the Soviet Union and its population (148 million) constituted 51% of the total population of 288.7 million of the Soviet Union. If one takes into account that five of the fifteen republics of the former Soviet Union (Ukraine, Belarus and the three Baltic republics) with a combined population of 70.1 million and a territory of 986,000 square kilometres were already members of the UN at the time of the Soviet Union's dissolution, Russia's share in the population of 218.6 million of the remaining ten republics rises to almost 68% and its share in the territory of those republics to almost 80%.

6 The New York Times, 7 September 1991, A4, col. 1.

7 28 UN Chronicle, No. 4 (December 1991) 49.

8 Georgia attended the Alma-Ata conference as an observer and has not yet joined the Commonwealth of Independent States.

9 The New York Times, 9 December 1991, A8, col. 4.

10 The New York Times, 22 December 1991, Sect. 1, Part 1, p. i2, col. 3.

11 The New York Times, 23 December 1991, A10, col. 1.

12 The New York Times, 26 December 1991, A1, col. 5.

13 See Appendix to UN Doc. 1991/RUSSIA of 24 December 1991.

14 UN Doc. 1991/RUSSIA, 1.

15 See UN Doc. S/PV.3046 of 31 January 1992, with President Yeltsin's statement on pp. 42-8 there.

16 Under the fifth Alma-Ata declaration of 21 December 1991, the eleven participants, having expressed `satisfaction that the Republic of Byelorussia and Ukraine continue to be UN members as sovereign independent states', agreed, in Article 2 of the said declaration, that `the Republic of Byelorussia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine will help other member states of the Commonwealth settle problems connected with their full membership in the UN and other international organizations'. (The New York Times, 23 December 1991, A10, col. 1).

17 The New York Times, 3 March 1992, A3, col. 1. The republics thus admitted were, in alphabetical order, Azerbeijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 11:01AM