History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Wikipedia's article for Yugoslavia:

One of the seven successor states was also known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) until 2003. The FRY aspired to be a sole legal successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but those claims were opposed by the other former republics. After the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević from power in 2000, the FRY rescinded those aspirations, accepting the opinion of the Badinter Arbitration Committee about shared succession, and reapplied for and gained UN membership on November 2, 2000

My question: Why did the FRY (Serbia) and the other states dispute which was the legal successor? I roughly know that a legal successor inherits the predecessor state's treaties, positions, rights and obligations, etc. But specifically in this case, what are the benefits of being the successor state of Yugoslavia?

share|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

The major benefit includes the SFRY's assets and property located abroad in the time of dissolution that was frozen by foreign states in which the assets/property was located.

The assets/property that was of interest to successor states includes foreign currency and gold reserves and embassy buildings.


share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.