What is the status of the treaties signed between the USSR and the USA?
Most people sort of slide the USSR’s commitments over to Russia. I see other people claim that all the old treaties we signed with the USSR are now defunct since the USSR does not exist anymore.
It seems kind of logical to me that you can’t just assume that old treaties and agreements are still in effect once a government changes like it did in Russia.
So what’s the real deal?
If treaties went away with each change of government countries would routinely weasel out of treaties by making minor changes in government.
Or would we have a treaty setting up a worldwide commission to determine how “big” a change in government has to be in order to abrogate the things ? Would anyone abide by their decisions ?
Treaties, like foreign debt, need to live on between regimes or the basis for negotiating them in the first place disappears.
Russia did assume the USSR’s seat on the UN Security Council, so that’s a sign that Russia has assumed the USSR’s role in some treaties.
I would assume that unless they chose to renegotiate a particular treaty, you can take any valid treaty and cross out USSR and insert Russia.
The government didn’t change. The USSR ceased to exist. Let me repeat that with bolding: The USSR ceased to exist. The Russian Federation was one of the constituent states of the USSR, but by no means does that mean, legally, that the RF was the USSR (no matter how dominant Russia and Russians were in the now-defunct Union).
So Monty…
Do you have an opinion on the status of the treaties?
Certainly many of the obligations of Soviet era treaties, such as arms limitation treaties with the US, have been assumed by the Russians. But Monty is right, they aren’t the Soviet Union, so i’m sure that where it suits their interests and global opinion will allow, Russia will distance itself from previous Soviet commitments.
It’s also useful to remember what happened when the situation was reversed. In the 1970s, the Soviets mucked about in Afghanistan, culminating in the 1979 invasion. This despite Russian commitments to Britain in 1887, 1895, and 1907, that they would not involve themselves in Afghani affairs. That the invasion violated previous treaties was the least of concerns for the West at that point.
Make of this what you will:
OK, if Russia inherited most of the treaties that did exist, how about those that didn’t? Is Russia still at war with Japan?
:: Confused looks from crowd. ::
I’ll clarify. To my knowledge, the USSR and Japan never signed a treaty to officially end WWII. Did Russia inherit that war from the USSR, or did the collapse of the USSR end the conflict?
According to this Web site, yes.
Of course, this site is telling the Japanese side, but the opening paragraph looks kosher.
They are still officially in dispute about the Sakhalin and Kuril situation,at least as of 1995. cite.
I haven’t heard anything recently about Russia and Japan ending their dispute there, so I’d assume that the diplomatic situation is the same.
Does anybody know what happened to the debts of the USSR?
Where they assumed by Russia? Or were they dissolved in some sort of national bancruptcy agreement?
And…
Can Russia just unilaterally declare itself the succesor of the USSR? Don’t the other parties involved have to recognize a new agreement with the new country?
Or is just in our best interest to assume that Russia takes on the responsibilities of the USSR in certain cases?
Foreign governments and international monetary organizations take a dim view of any regime that attempts to repudiate the international debts of its’ predecessor. The threat of economic isolation can be very effective at getting even revolutionaries to pay their debts to the rest of the world.
Of course if a country having treaties with the original state starts claiming that the old treaties aren’t valid because the new nation isn’t a valid successor state, that rather undermines the position of the bankers in re foreign debt. Enforcing debt collection while reneging on other agreements is a wonderful way to earn the eternal enmity of the people you are fleecing.
Back on the other end of the Soviet Union’s lifespan, when it was first formed, several countries and institutions approached Soviet officials with inquiries about when they would start making payments on outstanding Russian loans. The official Soviet response was that those loans had been made to the Russian Empire (true enough) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did not recognize them as its responsibility.
IIRC, the Russian Federation came to some agreement (sorry, couldn’t find a cite) with the other FSU states that it would take on all of the debts of the USSR, along with all of the USSR’s property abroad (embassies and so forth) and the debts owed to the USSR (most of it worthless debt owed by various Third-World countries). This has since been renegotiated on several occasions. The Soviet debt is owed mainly to two groups, the London club (32 billion USD) and the Paris club (42 billion). Russia kind of got a raw deal on this one, I think, but it was their choice at the time, since they could have tried to have the foreign debt (and assets) divvied up with other FSU states.
After the Revolution, the Soviet Union repudiated all of the debt owed by the Tsarist government. Russia recently paid off some of this debt, on French bonds, at something like a kopeck on the rouble, but hasn’t made any promises about the rest.
This works both ways, of course: in 1991, the USA was falling all over itself to recognise Russia as the successor state to all of the arms-control treaties between the US and the USSR. One could equally say, “where it suits their interests and global opinion will allow, the United States will distance itself from previous commitments made to the USSR.” Such as, fr’instance, the ABM treaty?