Pitfalls of the successor state

I SHARE William Durward’s regret about the death of James Crawford, Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge (Letters, June 18). Along with Professor James Boyle, Prof Crawford wrote the legal advice to the Westminster Government concerning independence following the 2014 referendum. Their view was certainly that RUK would be considered to be the successor state to the UK, and that Scotland would have to reapply to join international organisations. However, he gives no insight into why any application would be in doubt. Does he really think Scotland would not be admitted to the UN (open to all “peace-loving states), or for instance to Nato, bearing in mind our strategic position at one end of the North Atlantic Gap?

Professors Crawford and Boyle argue England (or RUK) would claim, as it did, to be the “continuator state” (as they put it) or “successor state” to the UK. However, on the disintegration of the USSR, Russia claimed successor status, and thus was rewarded inter alia with the USSR’S UN Security Council seat, but it also had to accept under the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, “full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including financial obligations” (ie debts are the responsibility of the successor state).

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.