I wondered the same thing recently. Found this legal academic analysis of the succession of member states. The conclusion part made me think that the subject w

I wondered the same thing recently. Found this legal academic analysis of the succession of member states. The conclusion part made me think that the subject was negociated between constituant parts in the devolution treaty. However the paper does highlight that the UN is under ever more pressure for rule-based functioning and transparency, so who knows. Personally if it were me, I'd rather try and get Russia's membership or voting rights suspended, based on the fact that article 4 states that the UN is for peace loving nations. In the current climate this has a chance of passing in the general assembly, where the veto can not be used. Russia has evoked article 41 'right of self-defense' but that seems problematic. Another question is if you want to exclude Russia. It sets a precedent, and erodes the position of the UN if not (near-) unanimous. The previous vote had 144 out of 193 voting against Russia, with only 5 against (Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, etc) https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...