Talk:Successor state

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a sport-specific convention (which I personally don't understand) that an existing team cannot be abolished. It was important in the division of Czechoslovakia that the two states were equal successors and that although the capital of Czechoslovakia became that of the Czech Republic, it was not the "independence of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia". The UN and other international treaties were perfectly willing to accept this, but UEFA for whatever reason wasn't. I'm not familiar with hockey but I presume it's the same.

The Yugoslavia/Serbia succession is even worse, because as this article shows, FRY DID claim political succession and the international community, agreeing with the other successors, refused to accept it for politics - but has for sports. Of course, it's not nearly as important an issue.

CMV512 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Succession of states → Successor state – The term "successor state" is the most common term relating to the concept of states succeeding. "Succession of states" is not really an established term in common usage.

On Pageviews Analysis, the article "Successor state" averages 49 daily views (over past 12 months), while the actual page "Succession of states" averages 164. Nearly one-third of visits coming from a single redirect is incredibly high and signals what name makes more sense.

From:

Succession of states is a concept in international relations regarding a successor state that has become a sovereign state over a territory (and populace) that was previously under the sovereignty of another state.

To:

A successor state is a concept in international relations regarding a sovereign state that has newly formed over a territory and populace that was previously under the sovereignty of another state. Sabuskii (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONTERM. मल्ल (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. But "newly formed" doesn't see quite right to me. Russia was not newly formed when it succeeded the Soviet Union. Srnec (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps the word "newly" could be removed and then the rest of it makes sense? Not a political scientist. Sabuskii (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.