4 ms·

No, Russia cannot be removed from the UN Security Council

20 points by type0 5y ago

type0 5y ago
>> to establish that the Russian Federation is, in fact, not a permanent member of the UN Security Council at all. The argument comes down to a literal reading of Article 23(1) of the UN Charter, which provides that ‘The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.’ There is an obvious issue here: the USSR ceased to exist in December 1991, and the Charter has not been amended Ah, so by UN law they're dealing with USSR, now I understand why Putin tries to restore the countries borders /s edit: why not just choose Ukraine to be the USSR successor state in the same way China was replaced as a permanent member; bring in the UN peace-forces ASAP
- _8j50 5y ago
  Did you read the whole article?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >why not just choose Ukraine to be the USSR successor state in the same way China was replaced as a permanent member; bring in the UN peace-forces ASAP This would be the same as the the peace keeping nations declaring war on Russia. The pretense of a legal loophole will not matter to Russia if a UN member is shooting Russian planes and troops.
bumblebritches5 5y ago
torstenvl 5y ago
I think this argument is a bit superficial and I don't find it convincing at all. The author cited the Alma-Ata Protocols as a basis for Russia being able to exercise the USSR's USNC seat. Point 1 of Annex V here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG/N9142570.pdf https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG... But he doesn't even mention in passing that Russia is now in open violation of the same Protocols. This is a new development, so invoking the laches-type "But it's been thirty years!" argument falls flat. At most it's been just shy of 8 years, and that's if new violations don't give rise to a new legal basis for objection under this bizarre laches-type analysis (they do give rise to a new cause of action in laches analysis of civil liability at common law, though that's not remotely controlling). The author also glosses over the Republic of China / People's Republic of China issue. Under UNGAR 1668 and UNGAR 2758, the question of which government should be recognized as representing a UN member state is an "important question" and should be settled by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. That did happen with the ROC → PRC issue, but never happened for Russia. Lastly, while true that the larger part of a continuing state generally gets to maintain that state's position, that is only when the same political and legal entity continues in existence. For example, if California seceded from the U.S., nothing would happen to the U.S.'s permanent seat; but if the U.S. entirely dissolved, it wouldn't automatically go to California, it would simply cease to exist. Russia is not the USSR, and in fact Russia wasn't even the last to leave the USSR (Kazakhstan seceded 4 days after Russia did), and the USSR no longer exists as a political entity. Bottom line is that Russia's "continuance of the membership of the [USSR] in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council," is a product of an international agreement that, as of 24 February 2022, Russia has torn to shreds and set on fire. In my view, there's a strong argument that Russia has de facto withdrawn from it and should no longer benefit from it.
- type0 5y ago
  > in fact Russia wasn't even the last to leave the USSR (Kazakhstan seceded 4 days after Russia did) well, then Kazakhstan should get the permanent seat, that's still better than the current situation
- Eejorei0 5y ago
  > Russia is now in open violation of the same Protocols Weren't US and UK also in open violation of the protocol when they invaded Iraq?
  - Schiendelman 5y ago
    I thought they went through the motions of a vote first?
hakfoo 5y ago
Playing rules-lawyer here is comical. Why not put San Marino in? As a republic for 1700 years, they are clearly the standard-bearer for modern government. The Security Council was clearly meant to be a military/economic shortlist: the people we have to invite to the discussion because if we snub them, they can singlehandedly trigger a global fracas. They may not have wanted to list specific criteria, but it's a club that's fairly obvious who belongs. Russia has clearly proven it still qualifies for that, in a way no other post-Soviet state has. The ROC-PRC shift was an obvious implementation of the fact the world has stopped ignoring Beijing.

20 points by type0 5y ago

>> to establish that the Russian Federation is, in fact, not a permanent member of the UN Security Council at all. The argument comes down to a literal reading of Article 23(1) of the UN Charter, which provides that ‘The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.’ There is an obvious issue here: the USSR ceased to exist in December 1991, and the Charter has not been amended Ah, so by UN law they're dealing with USSR, now I understand why Putin tries to restore the countries borders /s edit: why not just choose Ukraine to be the USSR successor state in the same way China was replaced as a permanent member; bring in the UN peace-forces ASAP

_8j50 5y ago
Did you read the whole article?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
>why not just choose Ukraine to be the USSR successor state in the same way China was replaced as a permanent member; bring in the UN peace-forces ASAP This would be the same as the the peace keeping nations declaring war on Russia. The pretense of a legal loophole will not matter to Russia if a UN member is shooting Russian planes and troops.

bumblebritches5 5y ago

torstenvl 5y ago

I think this argument is a bit superficial and I don't find it convincing at all. The author cited the Alma-Ata Protocols as a basis for Russia being able to exercise the USSR's USNC seat. Point 1 of Annex V here: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG/N9142570.pdf https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N91/425/70/IMG... But he doesn't even mention in passing that Russia is now in open violation of the same Protocols. This is a new development, so invoking the laches-type "But it's been thirty years!" argument falls flat. At most it's been just shy of 8 years, and that's if new violations don't give rise to a new legal basis for objection under this bizarre laches-type analysis (they do give rise to a new cause of action in laches analysis of civil liability at common law, though that's not remotely controlling). The author also glosses over the Republic of China / People's Republic of China issue. Under UNGAR 1668 and UNGAR 2758, the question of which government should be recognized as representing a UN member state is an "important question" and should be settled by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. That did happen with the ROC → PRC issue, but never happened for Russia. Lastly, while true that the larger part of a continuing state generally gets to maintain that state's position, that is only when the same political and legal entity continues in existence. For example, if California seceded from the U.S., nothing would happen to the U.S.'s permanent seat; but if the U.S. entirely dissolved, it wouldn't automatically go to California, it would simply cease to exist. Russia is not the USSR, and in fact Russia wasn't even the last to leave the USSR (Kazakhstan seceded 4 days after Russia did), and the USSR no longer exists as a political entity. Bottom line is that Russia's "continuance of the membership of the [USSR] in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council," is a product of an international agreement that, as of 24 February 2022, Russia has torn to shreds and set on fire. In my view, there's a strong argument that Russia has de facto withdrawn from it and should no longer benefit from it.

type0 5y ago
> in fact Russia wasn't even the last to leave the USSR (Kazakhstan seceded 4 days after Russia did) well, then Kazakhstan should get the permanent seat, that's still better than the current situation
Eejorei0 5y ago
> Russia is now in open violation of the same Protocols Weren't US and UK also in open violation of the protocol when they invaded Iraq?
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  I thought they went through the motions of a vote first?

hakfoo 5y ago

Playing rules-lawyer here is comical. Why not put San Marino in? As a republic for 1700 years, they are clearly the standard-bearer for modern government. The Security Council was clearly meant to be a military/economic shortlist: the people we have to invite to the discussion because if we snub them, they can singlehandedly trigger a global fracas. They may not have wanted to list specific criteria, but it's a club that's fairly obvious who belongs. Russia has clearly proven it still qualifies for that, in a way no other post-Soviet state has. The ROC-PRC shift was an obvious implementation of the fact the world has stopped ignoring Beijing.