Liquidation of Succession — How Ukraine Lost Its Legal Link to the Ukrainian SSR and the People
Received: 24.09.2024
The submitted document confirms the existence of both the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR dated August 24, 1991, and the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. However, an analysis of their contents reveals fundamental legal discrepancies between them, particularly concerning succession, the state title, and the basis of sovereignty.
Resolution No. 1427-XII of the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian SSR clearly states:
“The Supreme Council of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares the independence of Ukraine and the establishment of an independent state — Ukraine.”
In this case, the reference to the Ukrainian SSR as a lawmaking subject disappears. The phrase “independent Ukrainian state” does not contain a specific state title (such as “republic”), does not refer to the current Constitution, and is framed as a political declaration rather than a legal act. The removal of the Ukrainian SSR from the text of the Act creates a rupture between the Soviet legal entity and the declared form of independence, which is not legally confirmed.
The gap between the Soviet entity and the proclaimed form of independence becomes particularly significant in the context of the Law of Ukraine “On the Succession of Ukraine” No. 1543-XII of 12 September 1991. Despite the wording in its title, the text of the law does not contain a direct statement that Ukraine is the successor of the Ukrainian SSR as a state. Article 1 merely records institutional continuity:
“From the moment of the proclamation of independence of Ukraine, the highest body of state power in Ukraine shall be the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the deputy composition of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.”
This provision affirms the uninterrupted structure of state authority but does not establish succession as a legal status in the sense of international law. None of the articles of Law No. 1543-XII contain the formulation “Ukraine is the successor of the Ukrainian SSR”, and any references to succession pertain exclusively to the international obligations of the USSR, without projecting this onto the state’s title or subjectivity.
At the same time, Article 7 of Law No. 1543-XII contains a partial form of succession, limited solely to the domain of international law. It states:
“Ukraine is the successor to the rights and obligations under the international treaties of the USSR that do not contradict the Constitution of Ukraine and the interests of the republic.”
Thus, the legislator acknowledges Ukraine’s succession regarding the USSR’s international obligations but does not extend this status to the state title, constitutional subjectivity, or internal succession from the Ukrainian SSR as a historical and legal entity.
The legal ambiguity is further reinforced when referring to the Constitution of Ukraine. Article 1 establishes:
Additionally, the provisions of Articles 1 and 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be considered:
· Article 1 states that “Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, and rule-of-law state,” but does not mention legal succession.
· Article 5 declares that “the people are the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in Ukraine,” yet the concept of “people” is not defined either in the Constitution or in the relevant laws, including those adopted after 2021 (see Law No. 1616-IX “On Indigenous Peoples of Ukraine” and Law No. 2827-IX “On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine”), where the titular nation — ethnic Ukrainians — is not mentioned.
Taken together with Law No. 2215-IX “On De-Sovietization” (2022), which effectively removed the Declaration of State Sovereignty of July 16, 1990 (No. 55-XII) from the legal field (without formally repealing it but depriving its provisions of legal effect), it can be concluded that Ukraine has lost institutional continuity between the Ukrainian SSR and the current state structure.
Therefore, even with archival documents forming the historical foundation of independence, the legal construct of Ukrainian statehood remains incomplete. The absence of a fixed state title, the lack of explicit succession in the Act, and the elimination of continuity through subsequent legislation create a legal vacuum that renders Ukraine’s statehood vulnerable under international law.
Special attention should be paid to the fact that a unified orthographic standard regulating the spelling of the state’s name, titles, and legal terms was adopted only in 2019 — by Resolution No. 437 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Despite its formally linguistic nature, this act has direct legal consequences, as it establishes binding norms for all state authorities, notarial procedures, and judicial acts.
Its late adoption indicates that for nearly three decades after independence, the state had not established official standards for writing the name “Ukraine” in legal documents, had not defined its title (republic), and had not clarified on behalf of which subject the government exercises power.
In the context of the legal exclusion of ethnic Ukrainians, the absence of orthographic and terminological norms can be seen as part of a systemic elimination of legal continuity: without a title, without a subject, without a people in whose name laws and courts function.
Only in 2019 was a formalized system introduced that allows the legal structure of the state to be redefined retroactively, effectively removing any mechanism for restoring the subjectivity of the titular people.
This reinforces the argument for the existence of an embedded legal construct — the “corporation of UKRAINE,” in which Ukrainians exist only as physical individuals, not as a people in whose name the state was founded.
