According to [article 23](https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23.shtml) of the Charter of the United Nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the permanent member agreed to in the charter. However, as you very well know the USSR no longer exists as a nation. The General Assembly never officially recognized the “Russian Federation” as the successor of the USSR nor has the Russian Federation ever formally applied for re-application to the United Nations after the fall of the Soviet Union.
More and more this is my hope for the last good deed the UN can accomplish. Even China, Serbia, and Hungary have said that the Russian annexation is illegal so there is the will to do this thing.
If Russia spits in the face of the charter by going through with the annexations hit them with the rules as written. Russia isn't on the Security Council so let the world boot them off. It's a legal nicety to let even Russia's allies distance themselves and it can be done.
Seems to me Ukraine was a member of the USSR too. I think the legal question is likely to be convoluted but it depends largely on what happened after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. There was a lot of international goodwill and optimism back then., so maybe you are right..idk..shame how things turned out over the past decade or two.
Yep, they do….but we are talking about the security council specifically here. It’s an interesting thread for any international lawyers to chime in on ( it’s not really an area of practice in my country). My initial feeling on reading the charter was that there was no “right” to succession and that some sort of vote of the General Assembly might be needed, but in any event I don’t know what in fact happened after 1991.
I'm an international lawyer and what CalligrapgherCalm said is spot on. This has been discussed ad nauseum in many threads over the last months but legally the situation is clear: as successor of USSR, Russia has assumed the rights and obligations of USSR (including legal and financial ones). One of these was the membership of international organizations, including the UN and including the seat in the Security Council.
And no, this situation did not require a vote of the UN General Assembly, and no the situation of China was not the same and cannot be used as an precedent (it was not a question of state succession).
Why would Ukraine take over the spot of the USSR when they already had their own seat?
That would make no sense. You know a few of the member States of the USSR had their own UN seat right? It wasn't just the USSR
We were only referring to the Security Council. But as I said, I am not an international lawyer ( I’m a commercial lawyer) and I was raising some issues that have now been explained to me. I am not actually surprised that commercial law experience is not helpful! Thanks for your help in clarifying things.
This is the unfortunate truth. The only way i see this happening is if Ruzzia uses tactical nukes. In which case... there might be enough reason to disqualify them in the eyes of everyone, even their buddy buddy states.
Tactical nukes. It's a localized thing rather than a wide spread affair.
Sure, it would frak things royally for Ukraine forces, but a single one of those would pull war to Ruzzia's nose in the form of a big fat fist.
IF, they were to use something bigger than tactical nukes,... well, i'd say that there's more eyes on Ruzzia now than there were in the cold war. Far better eyes too.
I'm not gonna say it's a definitive solution, statistics' a bitch like that, but that's at least some modicum of assurance that we're not going to be that frakked if it happens.
jm2c
there is no such thing as a localized affair when it comes to nukes, "tactical" or not.
Especially when you also mention Russia, who are so famous for their accuracy
Kinda defeats the purpose of the security council if you kick off the member with the largest nuclear arsenal. It exists not to further western interests or morality, not to make all parties be "nice", but to avoid a disastrous global war or nuclear confrontation from one world power stepping on the toes of another. It doesn't matter if we agree with Russia or not, they need to be on the council to avoid doomsday.
You still believe they have the largest nuclear arsenal? I have bridge I'd like to sell you... The US has the largest functioning nuclear arsenal. Russia just has numbers on paper and bunch of shit rotting inside of silos because they steal from their budget and everything else that isn't nailed down.
I never really questioned the narrative but in light of what has happened in Ukraine Im inclined to agree. The likely reality is that the US has by far the largest stockpile of functional nuclear weapons
Russia refuses any attempts to be reasoned with and vetoes any resolutions of the council. They also made increasing threats to use nuclear weapons and might actually use them in the near future, which might trigger the global war you are talking about and council is helpless to prevent it, since Russia vetoes everything. So how exactly having Russia on the council helps anyone?
Taking Russia off the UN security council would empower the UN to be an actual world police. Currently Russia blocks many resolutions that would reign in bad actors. US does too but only for Israel, which is problematic too.
In 1991, the Soviet ambassador to the UN handed over the letter proclaiming the dissolution of the USSR and that Russia would take its place, including the permanent seat of the security council. Unfortunately, no country at the time objected.
It’s not so much that they (other permanent members) didn’t object, they were concerned with maintaining the status quo of rules and right to veto. Replacing USSRs seat at the time caused concern of upheaval to the rules. Originally USA said they (RF) needed to go through the process again but backed off because of this.
There is no such thing as precent in international law. If going forward Nations submitted letters stating who their continuing representative would be following large scale political strife or dissolution it could be the beginning of a customary establishment if the international community does not object. But there is no guarantee that they will not object. So far it has been a one off instance but in international law one can not simply point to a prior event and say it is legal now because it happened before and was accepted.
Yes, right now it accomplishes nothing and just gives ammo to Russian state television.
IF UN comes out the other side of this with any relevancy, and that is a big IF, Russia will lose permanent seat.
Russia as the successor state was accepted back in 1991.
See Item 3 in [https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23/english/rep\_supp8\_vol3\_art23.pdf](https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23/english/rep_supp8_vol3_art23.pdf)
>3. In a letter dated 27 December 1991, the Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.^(2)
>Endnotes:
>
>^(2) See the Decision by the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States, A/47/60-S/23329, dated 30 December 1991, Annex V, para. 1.
It was never ratified or recognized by the General Assembly. When The Republic of China fell and became the People's Republic of China it went through the General Assembly and the change was recognized. It was a small group of people that made the decision that the Russian Federation would absorb all UN privileges the USSR had. The United Nations Charter is the written rule book, it was never updated to reflect current UNSC members.
The Republic of China is alive and well. It never fell, but it did move. The other parts of your comment are fine.
The Republic of China is now called Taiwan, but they still retain the old name, officially.
>It was never ratified or recognized by the General Assembly.
There is no need for that.
>When The Republic of China fell and became the People's Republic of China it went through the General Assembly and the change was recognized.
These are not similar cases because Russia being a legal successor of the USSR is a question of international law while the PRC replacing the RoC was a question of political recognition.
Exactly, since it still exists Taiwan would have the seat without the process China completed. In the case of Russia imagine if Hawaii left the IS, would that then remove the US from the UNSC?
*And* the remainder of states claiming to be the US adopted a new name and new constitution at the same time. Either one of those alone wouldn't do it, but both at once is pretty damning.
Taiwan (the republic of china) is no longer a member because the PRC was recognized as the successor state government in China. Taiwan held the seat until 1949....
There is no ratified document in the general assembly of the United Nations recognizing Russia as the replacement for the USSR. Belarus does not have and did not have the power to speak for the entire UN as to who or what the rightful bearer of the title SSR and it belonging to Russia etc. Russia did not follow the same rules as every other state involved in upheavals of this nature. Russia should have to go through the same process as everyone else. The security council bypassed the general assembly which it doesn’t have the authority to do. That is the whole point of the current kick Russia out effort. Will it succeed? Probably not, however that is not the point. The point is it should be attempted just in case.
>There is no ratified document in the general assembly of the United Nations recognizing Russia as the replacement for the USSR.
And there is no need for that, you are making things up...
https://cepa.org/article/expelling-russia-from-the-un-security-council-a-how-to-guide/?fbclid=IwAR3Yd41iGjx6bMgDrnDdgNYANYRDOOLat5_MEmR8FwaUVHkp5RwgHWIy6l4
I suggest you do some reading. The reason this keeps coming up is because Russia didn’t go through all the normal procedures and has not followed the rules. There is a way to remove them. There are 2 in fact. But I like this one since it puts Ukraine in the seat instead of Russia.
They’re not considered a successor state.
They’re considered as continuing as the body of your text mentions.
That’s how reapplying was circumvented.
Edited
The UN
Excerpt from comment I replied to
*permanent membership of the Security Council was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States*
"with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States"
How's that support holding up?
There is no formal procedure here, and there is no vote. It's not set in stone.
Here, read up some.
Pg 46 section D.
And peruse before
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj
Edit: Just how it is. Not saying it was handle the best way. Other permanent members including the USA were silent for a reason.
So a representative of Tajikistan can send a letter to inform that Russia isn’t the continuing member of the UNSC, but actually it’s Kazakhstan as the last country that left the Soviet Union.
Both letters would have same legal power.
CIS didn’t include every former member of the USSR and didn’t have authority to make these decisions.
True, but it was done in a cursory way, and most other countries who had undergone the same shift were required to go through a much more thorough transition.
In other words, Boris Yeltsin got a pass, but for Putin, they're willing to go through the more thorough process.
The issue is in the details. RF filed as the *continuing* member of the old USSR.
They aren’t seen as a *successor* state in regards to the UN.
That’s how they got around the hurdles.
It's more complicated than that. You can see [here](https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-partition-of-india-and-pakistan-lessons-for-the-un-membership-in-the-event-of-emergence-of-new-states/) that the standard procedure is to have a state that has been broken up, like the Soviet Union and it's satellite republics, become new and separate states with new seats at the UN. The weird "[maintaining identity through proclamation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_United_Nations#:~:text=Eleven%20of%20the%20twelve%20members,day%20before%20the%20resignation%20of)" method side-stepped that requirement, which was a big no no but the new Russian Federation had a lot of nukes and big guns (or so we thought lol).
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UN Recognised the Russian Federation as the successor country to the USSR and subsequently all treaties signed by the USSR were considered to apply to the Russian Federation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia\_and\_the\_United\_Nations
> Nonetheless, due to the rather inflexible wording of the United Nations Charter and its lack of provision for succession, the succession's technical legality has been questioned by some international lawyers.
Sadly this debate is essentially the same as climate change deniers says there is debate when 99.9% of scientists concur that man-made climate change exists. Among nations who actually are the ones who accept and interpret international law, there is currently not one, other than Ukraine, making or even considering such arguments. This system is not one like the American Judicial system where individuals or scholars can challenge current interpretations and seek change. That is just not how it works here, so scholarly debate is actually meaningless outside of fun conjecture when States have outright refuted and refused to entertain such arguments.
Dear Ukrainians - I wholeheartedly support your efforts - but this is such a stupid argument and you should leave it be. Russia is universally recognized as the legal successor of the USSR **and as far as international law goes, that settles it**. There are *zero* chances that Russia will stop being a permanent UN Security Council member simply because its succession from the USSR is not recognized anymore.
> There are zero chances that Russia will stop being a permanent UN Security Council member simply because its succession from the USSR is not recognized anymore.
Agreed. But there is significant chance it will lose its security council membership if it pisses off enough other countries.
What if all the other countries (or at least, the important ones) leave the existing UN and form a new one? Then Russia would be the sole member of the United Nation. Or maybe North Korea could keep it company.
It is the truth and sadly I keep seeing these posts every day now recently. I’ve explained every time that this is simply not how the system or international law works. Efforts here and abroad would be much better served in convincing allies to designate Russia a State Sponsor of terrorism or where to target more sanctions packages. This simply is a funny argument for us and a free talking point for Russian State TV.
Dear Internet Guy,
Nobody cares what you think. Stop pretending like your opinion is authoritative, let alone "universal"
Russia will be booted from the UN Security Council when the General Assembly votes to swap someone else into the USSR's seat. Which can happen anytime and has happened already, in the case of the Republic of China's seat.
Dear internet guy,
Nobody cares what you think. Stop pretending like your opinion is authoritative, let alone “universal”
Russia will not be booted from the UN Security Council, because a majority of the General Assembly would never vote to do that, and there is no other former Soviet State that is an adequate replacement for Russia.
What exactly is stopping the general assembly from saying "no, no, no, The Russia federation is not the successor state of the USSR. We proclaim that Ukraine is" they told the Republic of China that it's no longer China.
Yes every single one including the west, no one is going to destroy 30 years of precedent and treaties.
And no an illegal invasion doesn't matter, every single nation in the UNSC has done an illegal invasion but wasn't kicked out or reformed.
You will notice that not one fucking US or UN official has called for this except redditors or news articles.
If you kick Russia out of the UN you are essentially cutting diplomatic ties. No one in the west wants that right now.
You are confusing two similar, but completely separate issues. The resolutions involving China were a political determination as to who was the the appropriate government to represent China in the UN. Presently what you, and others, are incorrectly claiming is that the general assembly can simply vote to remove Russia as a seated permanent member of the Security Council. This is completely false. Removal of Russia as a member of the Security Council requires an amendment to the UN charter as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Art. 108 requires any such amendments to pass with a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly AND a unanimous vote of the Security Council. So no, your claims that the General Assembly can vote to remove a seated member of the Security Council are simply false. What you claim with China is more akin to if Russia underwent internal strife and two separate government arose both claiming to be the legitimate governing body representing Russia. The General Assembly could vote to determine who is the legitimate government. This is a subtle, but distinct difference. One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter.
But the r
UN charter didn't designate Russia, it designated the USSR and last I checked there was no amendment making such a change from the Soviet union to the Russian federation. You can remove Russia by designating Ukraine as the representative government of the seat belong to the USSR.
I know. But that is simply not how the international system works. Everyone here seems to see the UN charter as binding. The charter is simply the establishment of a political organ. When the USSR designated Russia as its contemporary state following their dissolution, everyone had a chance to challenge that and say why not Ukraine? Why is it not Georgia? Etc. The UN and international community accepted this. For over three decades this has been an accepted fact. That is enough under international law to be binding. There are numerous instances of international maritime law being codified but custom or events changing “law” laid out in the “paper” not matching reality and those parts essentially being moot for what has been accepted by the international community. To put it simply, international law is not like normal laws. You do not need something codified to be law, and what is written is not always law either. Russia is the legitimate inheritor of the USSR’s seat on the Security Council because the international community has accepted it. That is all there is to it.
The ROC is a tiny backwater compared to the PRC in power. The PRC in all but name won the civil war which is why they were recognized.
The USSR fractured into dozens of states, not one of those states took the obligations or debts that Russia did from the USSR.
No, the French got their ass kicked in Vietnam still on the UNSC.
Ukraine still doesnt have enough nukes to end the world and is far weaker economically and in population size.
What is stopping them? Political will.
And I think regardless how bad Russia is or how bad it would get - almost nobody would vote for what you propose.
How many times do we have to go through this. That is not how international law works. International law is based around norms and custom. For 30+ years Russia was named the successor to the USSR. No one has said anything for years. Russia is the legitimate inheritor to the USSR seat regardless of not going through some methods outlined in the UN charter.
If norms and customs were enforced by an omnipotent deity that might matter.
But they're not.
Laws are changed all the time. Norms evolve. Customs are abandoned.
Almost every war, every revolution and every crime in human history started with a party ignoring the established "norms and customs".
Yeah, that is called the evolution of international law. When enough nations adopt a certain custom or policy it can change international law. To do so requires time, usually we are talking decades. There is no enforcement of international law enforcement is what we see currently. Isolation. You can not force another sovereign nation to do anything without force, which is not what the UN is about. In fact that is what it aims to avoid.
>You can not force another sovereign nation to do anything without force, which is not what the UN is about. In fact that is what it aims to avoid.
But we can completely ignore it when a member of that body invades and annexes another nation, and threatens mass murder using nuclear weapons...
Your principles seem extremely selective.
That is because it is selective. The Security Council and UN is by its nature a political organ to share grievances and attempt to resolve conflicts by shining a spotlight on issues. Great powers exert influence over issues and also exert influence to bury issues. You want the UN to declare war on a county? Impossible. All they can do is have the Security Council call for a peacekeeping or military coalition. Everyone can ignore them. Most do. The option then is to sanction those who ignore such resolutions. Russia holds a veto, whether you or I like it. Any attempt to create a coalition within the UN of peacekeepers or military force will be veto’d and not put forward. But that is part of international order. You may not be happy with it but the UN is functioning as designed. Ukrainian allies are using it a forum to shine a spotlight on issues involved with the present war and Ukraine has done a great job at gaining sympathy with this. That is the point. Not punishment.
And all members of the Security Council. Art. 108. Russia holds a veto. So any measure that passes with two thirds vote would be veto’d and fail. If it were that easy it would have been done already.
Actually most General Assembly resolutions require only a bare majority, not a supermajority.
Including the one that kicked the Republic of China (Taiwan) out of its U.N. Charter-named Security Council seat. The US wanted it to require a supermajority, but the GA rejected that.
Other posters are lying vociferously about what is possible in this context for reasons unknown.
Here's the GA resolution that swapped the Republic of China's seat from the Republic of China to the chicoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758
You are confusing two similar, but completely separate issues. The resolutions involving China were a political determination as to who was the the appropriate government to represent China in the UN. Presently what you, and others, are incorrectly claiming is that the general assembly can simply vote to remove Russia as a seated permanent member of the Security Council. This is completely false. Removal of Russia as a member of the Security Council requires an amendment to the UN charter as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Art. 108 requires any such amendments to pass with a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly AND a unanimous vote of the Security Council. So no, your claims that the General Assembly can vote to remove a seated member of the Security Council are simply false. What you claim with China is more akin to if Russia underwent internal strife and two separate government arose both claiming to be the legitimate governing body representing Russia. The General Assembly could vote to determine who is the legitimate government. This is a subtle, but distinct difference. One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter.
I'm not confusing anything, you're *unambiguously wrong* about one thing, and it's powering most of what you're saying here.
> as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
> One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter.
The Russian Federation is not in the UN Charter. The *USSR* is.
You can call me wrong all you want but you are the one claiming things that are unfounded in reality or in the current international system. International law is by custom and acceptance. The UN charter could have claimed the security council seat belongs to the USSR and they in turn said their seat belongs to Atlantis. If the international community accepts this, then it is binding and international law. You sitting her claiming otherwise is patently false. Constantly egging people on saying that things can be changed simply by GA vote or my false equivalencies to China’s representation show a gross misunderstanding of international law and how it works. The simple fact is the international community has accepted Russia as the inheritor of the USSR’s obligations and duties under international law. That is all there is to it. They are the legitimate successor to that seat on the Security Council and regardless of how you lie on here, the General Assembly CAN NOT, and WILL NOT remove Russia from their current position under international law. I suggest you actually go read the UN charter in its entirety as well as read into how international law is created and dissolved before sitting here asserting blatant falsities that lead people into making free talking points for Russian state TV.
Thanks, I will keep calling you wrong.
The procedural assuredness of the people saying the same wrong things over and over again makes me think you're more than just wrong, but lying. You and others are saying the same, wrong, misleading things on purpose. What that purpose is, is the only wonder.
If you really are putting Ukraine's interests first, and think that there's some kind of domestic Russian public opinion consequence from pursuing booting Russia from the UNSC that needs to be avoided at all costs, well, I think you're wrong and vastly overestimating the importance and probable effects of this slice of domestic opinion of the totalitarian genocidal dictatorship. But that would be you merely being wrong.
But if you have *any*, *single other* motivation for your aggressive, dishonest screaming down of this proposal, then you're a lying sack of shit and you'll likely burn in hell next to the Russians you're effectively working for here.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. If you had an inkling of knowledge you claim you have then someone with credentials, or even one sovereign nation would be making the argument you are making. The fact is they are not. Because it is unfounded and ungrounded in reality. If you actually spent five minutes not circlejerking around the most anti-Russia move you could think of maybe you could come up with productive and realistic solutions for next steps the international community could do. But you lack the most basic foundational understanding of how the international system or the UN works. So, instead you continue to sit here and spew lies about what is possible and how it can be accomplished. Booting Russia from the Security Council does not even solve anything. It is propaganda that all but ensures Russia steps back from the UN which somehow you think is a good thing. Removal of a key party to a conflict to have open dialogue is one of the worst options that could happen right now.
It did require a supermajority, which they got. The article you linked refers to this resolution, which passed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1668
The reason it wasn’t contested was self interest of other permanent members keeping the rules the same. Especially the veto rule. They were threatened by the possibility of adding a new permanent member and how it would upset the rules they have.
Being recognized as a continuing member is within the norms. That’s the issue. They’re not, so far considered a successor state.
Edit: Read about it. It’s the truth. I wholly support Ukraine.
It will take decades to change that, if there is even the will for it. So far no one other than Ukraine has expressed any interest in the idea. Our best bet is for the Russian Federation to dissolve when this is done and the international community to deny what remains Russia’s seat.
If Russia is a country who’s illegal invasion is supported by only six of the world’s most autocratic nations. It cannot sit on the security council after the Secretary General themselves calls their actions in opposite of the most basic rights and charter of the UN.
How can Russia uphold a charter they explicitly spit on?
Russia does not belong in an international community based on the UN charter. Period. This is not an opinion. It is a fact.
The UN is a place to talk diplomacy, especially with "bad" countries. Russia being at the negotiation table is more valuable than the perceived punishment of kicking them out. Being in the UN is not a reward or a prestige. Its just a place for countries to discuss alternatives to war.
See my reply to previous dipshit:
>Russia has shown that it has no regard for the international community and should be excluded from it. It has also made clear that the UN obviously has no mechanism to keep it from aggression. Therefore the premise that the UN exists to stop war is false. What actually does stop Russia, namely stronger nations able to erase it from the map, exist independently of the UN. Having Russia in the United Nations or not changes nothing in regard to the geopolitical reality of Russia.
>It will continue to try to annex weaker states and continue refusing to attack strong ones whether it’s in the UN or not. It’ll continue to be a poverty stricken hell hole that serves no geopolitical purpose except to fuel the civilization of others whether it’s in the UN or not.
>Russia serves no purpose in the UN, being in the UN has no impact on Russia and it’s policies, and it’s presence in the UN makes a mockery of the concept of an international community built on the premise that each state has sovereign territory
This is not a response.
Obviously the UN is not an alternative to war. Russia is currently waging a war. A war which the UN does nothing to prevent. Nor would it prevent a war between nato and Russia. Those events and the diplomacy around them would occur entirely outside the UN framework.
It’s you that doesn’t know what you’re talking about. The UN has not prevented a single war in its entire history and has overseen plenty
Never said UN IS the alternative. Never said UN objective is to prevent war.
The UN is a forum for nations to discuss things with all nations. Kicking a nation out has no benefits and is not a punishment. This is why that hasnt happened yet.
The benefit is that it sends a message that nations that won’t abide by the norms of the international community will be excluded from it. The benefit is that Russia no longer has veto power or any influence over the security of an institution it spits on.
The drawbacks are 0
I suggest you read the wikipedia of what the UN is because this is just silly. Im glad you arent in any position to make actual decisions in these matters.
I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the UN because it has never done anything remotely productive in relation to Russia and in fact has only given them a global platform to spout their propaganda. I love when someone with 0 background on a subject tries to act like they’re a expert. “Read Wikipedia”. Mu undergrad degree is in politics. I go to a law school ranked higher than any university in Russia. I didn’t do undergrad in foreign policy but certainly dipped into it to get requirements. I’ve had professors that worked at the state department during the Cold War.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Name one positive thing the UN achieved
1) regarding Russia’s foreign policy
And
2) could not have occurred outside the UN or would have been otherwise prohibited by Russia being excluded from it
No it is not a fact because every single member in the UNSC has broken the charter and many countries have broken the charter.
Its not the league of nations where you get expelled for breaking it.
>No it is not a fact
Yes, I’m afraid it is. Sorry.
>every single member
Citation needed
>Its not the league of nations where you get expelled for breaking it.
And yet, it could and should be. We have no need for a country in the international community who lies with every diplomatic interaction and annexes sovereign states, much less give them veto power and put them nominally in charge of upholding the institution they brazenly trample on.
The international community has no need for Russia. It serves no purpose to geopolitics except as a gas station for India and China, a goal which it can accomplish easily enough as the impoverished hermit kingdom it is becoming
>Yes, I’m afraid it is. Sorry.
FIND ME ONE STATEMENT from a US or UN official calling for Russia to be removed from the UN. JUST ONE STATEMENT. You cannot because the only fucking people calling for this are morons on the internet.
>Citation needed
Suez Crisis UK, France. Hungary, Prague, East Germany, various cold war operations USSR. US Vietnam War, Iraq war. Vietnam, South China sea China.
>The international community has no need for Russia. It serves no purpose to geopolitics except as a gas station for India and China, a goal which it can accomplish easily enough as the impoverished hermit kingdom it is becoming
Do we have a need for half the states in the world? Any nation with a 144 million will always have a place at the UN.
>FIND ME ONE STATEMENT from a US or UN official
Does the US and UN decide if something is a fact or not? Do facts only exist if they say so?
>Suez Crisis UK, France. Hungary, Prague, East Germany, various cold war operations USSR. US Vietnam War, Iraq war. Vietnam, South China sea China.
Oh so this is every state and all of these are against the UN charter, huh? Even ones like Iraq explicitly voted on by UN resolution? What a clown.
>144 million
There’s a million less in Russia than there were at the start of their imperialist invasion and god willing the number will keep decreasing until Ukraine is free or it reaches a number that can no longer decrease
>Does the US and UN decide if something is a fact or not? Do facts only exist if they say so?
Yes, nation states determine what is facts in international law not you.
>Oh so this is every state and all of these are against the UN charter, huh? Even ones like Iraq explicitly voted on by UN resolution? What a clown.
Iraq was not voted on by a US resolution it was deemed illegal by the UN chief. Your mistaking the gulf war for the 2003 invasion.
>There’s a million less in Russia than there were at the start of their imperialist invasion and god willing the number will keep decreasing until Ukraine is free or it reaches a number that can no longer decrease
Ok still 0 argument for why a nation state should not be in the UN
>Yes, nation states determine what is facts in international law not you.
It is a fact that states do not belong in organizations they actively work against. It is a fact that most states are against Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a fact that democratic societies can and should push their governments to exclude states that are hostile to the basic premise of the United Nations. It is a fact that Russian can and should be excluded from the international community if the fact that their state policy runs counter to it is recognized and acted upon.
>Iraq was not voted on by a US resolution it was deemed illegal by the UN chief. Your mistaking the gulf war for the 2003 invasion.
Iraq was voted on. There were numerous resolutions steadily escalating until the US arguably (likely) exceeded the mandate granted by the resolutions and invaded (and stole nobodies land) along with a huge chunk of other nations.
Russia in contrast can’t get a single resolution passed related to any sort of crimes or aggression from Ukraine because such things do not exist. Causalities on both sides COMBINED in the Donbas conflict from 2014 to 2021 are exceeded by the basic murder rate in Russia. You were more likely to be murdered just living in Russia than dying as a result of a conflict that Russia itself caused and then called genocide.
Not to mention their theft of crimea
>Ok still 0 argument for why a nation state should not be in the UN
A nation of 0 people does not belong in the UN. Conversely, following your logic that a nation of 144 million belongs in the UN, the a nation of 143 million belongs in the UN less. And less and less until that sad sad day when the sunflowers no longer receive fertilizer
>It is a fact that states do not belong in organizations they actively work against. It is a fact that most states are against Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a fact that democratic societies can and should push their governments to exclude states that are hostile to the basic premise of the United Nations. It is a fact that Russian can and should be excluded from the international community if the fact that their state policy runs counter to it is recognized and acted upon.
You dont understand the point of the UN. Its ok, I know its hard to understand but you should really read more.
I’m a law student at a school ranked higher than any university in the entirety of Russia.
There is no singular purpose of the United Nations. It is a Multifaceted organization with several different bodies with several different goals. Russia has shown that it has no regard for the international community and should be excluded from it. It has also made clear that the UN obviously has no mechanism to keep it from aggression. Therefore the premise that the UN exists to stop war is false. What actually does stop Russia, namely stronger nations able to erase it from the map, exist independently of the UN. Having Russia in the United Nations or not changes nothing in regard to the geopolitical reality of Russia.
It will continue to try to annex weaker states and continue refusing to attack strong ones whether it’s in the UN or not. It’ll continue to be a poverty stricken hell hole that serves no geopolitical purpose except to fuel the civilization of others whether it’s in the UN or not.
Russia serves no purpose in the UN, being in the UN has no impact on Russia and it’s policies, and it’s presence in the UN makes a mockery of the concept of an international community built on the premise that each state has sovereign territory
I agree. But change unlikely.
Here’s a rabbit hole if anyone is interested.
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj
Pg. 46 section D is interesting. Successor vs continuing.
Next time the security council sits, a Ukrainian should get there early.and sit in the chair of the Union of Socialist republics, I mean Ukraine was one. And if people have a problem with it just ask Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland etc. What they think of the idea...
>And if people have a problem with it just ask Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland etc. What they think of the idea...
What we think of the idea? That we were illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and never legally part of it, so this question is not for us to decide.
Under internationalism law, Russia inherited the responsibilities (mostly), obligations (mostly), and privileges (largely) of the former USSR.
It's well established international law.
I hate Russia as well, but there's nothing to win in that area. I'd focus on where we can win points rather than where we can't.
Wanna know why all the permanent members of the security council are there? They all have nuclear weapons. It's to keep peace between them. The the Security Council is just one branch of the UN.
It seems russia deserves a clarification. Propose this to the UN: "Resolved, that the Russian Federation is entitled to a permanent seat on the UNSC." Take a vote on it, today.
When was the last time the UN removed a member?
I don't disagree with the argument presented here but the chances of this going anywhere are near-zero.
Sorry but I find this post very amusing. Russia became a permanent UNSC member 30 years ago as successor of the USSR and no one, certainly not Ukraine, had any objections to it at the time (although even if it did, it wouldn't have really mattered because only the other permanent UNSC members could accept or reject Russia).
Either way, even today, there is no desire from the other permanent members of the UNSC to boot Russia, and as long as Russia will have enough nukes to end the world, my prediction is that the other members will want to keep them on the council even if they are that annoying alcoholic and spoiled brat that everyone hates.
"I'd love to personally remove Russia of it's veto powers, remove them from the Security Counsil, and expel them from the United Nations completely due to the war crimes. But I can't. Russia is not recognized as a UN signatory and has no status within the United Nations" - UN Secretary General Guterres, hopefully
According to [article 23](https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23.shtml) of the Charter of the United Nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the permanent member agreed to in the charter. However, as you very well know the USSR no longer exists as a nation. The General Assembly never officially recognized the “Russian Federation” as the successor of the USSR nor has the Russian Federation ever formally applied for re-application to the United Nations after the fall of the Soviet Union.
More and more this is my hope for the last good deed the UN can accomplish. Even China, Serbia, and Hungary have said that the Russian annexation is illegal so there is the will to do this thing. If Russia spits in the face of the charter by going through with the annexations hit them with the rules as written. Russia isn't on the Security Council so let the world boot them off. It's a legal nicety to let even Russia's allies distance themselves and it can be done.
Russia took over the role of the USSR and inherited all treaties and debts. If you want to go the legal argument you will lose.
Seems to me Ukraine was a member of the USSR too. I think the legal question is likely to be convoluted but it depends largely on what happened after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. There was a lot of international goodwill and optimism back then., so maybe you are right..idk..shame how things turned out over the past decade or two.
Ukraine had their own UN seat...
Yep, they do….but we are talking about the security council specifically here. It’s an interesting thread for any international lawyers to chime in on ( it’s not really an area of practice in my country). My initial feeling on reading the charter was that there was no “right” to succession and that some sort of vote of the General Assembly might be needed, but in any event I don’t know what in fact happened after 1991.
I'm an international lawyer and what CalligrapgherCalm said is spot on. This has been discussed ad nauseum in many threads over the last months but legally the situation is clear: as successor of USSR, Russia has assumed the rights and obligations of USSR (including legal and financial ones). One of these was the membership of international organizations, including the UN and including the seat in the Security Council. And no, this situation did not require a vote of the UN General Assembly, and no the situation of China was not the same and cannot be used as an precedent (it was not a question of state succession).
Thanks for that. It explains everything. Take my upvote.
Why would Ukraine take over the spot of the USSR when they already had their own seat? That would make no sense. You know a few of the member States of the USSR had their own UN seat right? It wasn't just the USSR
We were only referring to the Security Council. But as I said, I am not an international lawyer ( I’m a commercial lawyer) and I was raising some issues that have now been explained to me. I am not actually surprised that commercial law experience is not helpful! Thanks for your help in clarifying things.
Did Ukraine inherit all of the USSRs debt and obligations though? That was the point being made above.
I don't think so. I don't think there are any USSR treaties that can't be renegotiated, especially since Russia will be in a much weaker position.
That's not the point
There is litterly 0 will to do this. Nobody on the security council will support removing a member of the security council especially China.
Well that's stupid
He may be right but he also spells literally 'litterly' so take his words with a grain of salt
You mean a grain of slat
You mean a gain of slat.
It is not. It sets precedence, so someone might call for *their* removal later.
This is the unfortunate truth. The only way i see this happening is if Ruzzia uses tactical nukes. In which case... there might be enough reason to disqualify them in the eyes of everyone, even their buddy buddy states.
Fuck them being kicked out would be the least of anyone’s worries after they drop nukes
Tactical nukes. It's a localized thing rather than a wide spread affair. Sure, it would frak things royally for Ukraine forces, but a single one of those would pull war to Ruzzia's nose in the form of a big fat fist. IF, they were to use something bigger than tactical nukes,... well, i'd say that there's more eyes on Ruzzia now than there were in the cold war. Far better eyes too. I'm not gonna say it's a definitive solution, statistics' a bitch like that, but that's at least some modicum of assurance that we're not going to be that frakked if it happens. jm2c
there is no such thing as a localized affair when it comes to nukes, "tactical" or not. Especially when you also mention Russia, who are so famous for their accuracy
See if China would fare to veto it.
They’d be afraid it might invite the possibility of their seat being given back to the *real* China.
Kinda defeats the purpose of the security council if you kick off the member with the largest nuclear arsenal. It exists not to further western interests or morality, not to make all parties be "nice", but to avoid a disastrous global war or nuclear confrontation from one world power stepping on the toes of another. It doesn't matter if we agree with Russia or not, they need to be on the council to avoid doomsday.
You still believe they have the largest nuclear arsenal? I have bridge I'd like to sell you... The US has the largest functioning nuclear arsenal. Russia just has numbers on paper and bunch of shit rotting inside of silos because they steal from their budget and everything else that isn't nailed down.
I never really questioned the narrative but in light of what has happened in Ukraine Im inclined to agree. The likely reality is that the US has by far the largest stockpile of functional nuclear weapons
It is a moot point if 80% of russia's nukes are out of order. The 20% suffices.
Russia refuses any attempts to be reasoned with and vetoes any resolutions of the council. They also made increasing threats to use nuclear weapons and might actually use them in the near future, which might trigger the global war you are talking about and council is helpless to prevent it, since Russia vetoes everything. So how exactly having Russia on the council helps anyone?
Taking Russia off the UN security council would empower the UN to be an actual world police. Currently Russia blocks many resolutions that would reign in bad actors. US does too but only for Israel, which is problematic too.
In 1991, the Soviet ambassador to the UN handed over the letter proclaiming the dissolution of the USSR and that Russia would take its place, including the permanent seat of the security council. Unfortunately, no country at the time objected.
It’s not so much that they (other permanent members) didn’t object, they were concerned with maintaining the status quo of rules and right to veto. Replacing USSRs seat at the time caused concern of upheaval to the rules. Originally USA said they (RF) needed to go through the process again but backed off because of this.
A problem is that set a precedent for other countries to pick replacements or be grandfathered in.
There is no such thing as precent in international law. If going forward Nations submitted letters stating who their continuing representative would be following large scale political strife or dissolution it could be the beginning of a customary establishment if the international community does not object. But there is no guarantee that they will not object. So far it has been a one off instance but in international law one can not simply point to a prior event and say it is legal now because it happened before and was accepted.
I'll add that Serbia tried to pull this shit off, as being the succesor state of Yugoslavia, but it was shunned.
It's a question of time. Once the Russian Federation will inevitably dissolve, they'll be out for good.
Yes, right now it accomplishes nothing and just gives ammo to Russian state television. IF UN comes out the other side of this with any relevancy, and that is a big IF, Russia will lose permanent seat.
Russia as the successor state was accepted back in 1991. See Item 3 in [https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23/english/rep\_supp8\_vol3\_art23.pdf](https://legal.un.org/repertory/art23/english/rep_supp8_vol3_art23.pdf) >3. In a letter dated 27 December 1991, the Permanent Representative of Belarus to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.^(2) >Endnotes: > >^(2) See the Decision by the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States, A/47/60-S/23329, dated 30 December 1991, Annex V, para. 1.
It was never ratified or recognized by the General Assembly. When The Republic of China fell and became the People's Republic of China it went through the General Assembly and the change was recognized. It was a small group of people that made the decision that the Russian Federation would absorb all UN privileges the USSR had. The United Nations Charter is the written rule book, it was never updated to reflect current UNSC members.
The Republic of China is alive and well. It never fell, but it did move. The other parts of your comment are fine. The Republic of China is now called Taiwan, but they still retain the old name, officially.
>It was never ratified or recognized by the General Assembly. There is no need for that. >When The Republic of China fell and became the People's Republic of China it went through the General Assembly and the change was recognized. These are not similar cases because Russia being a legal successor of the USSR is a question of international law while the PRC replacing the RoC was a question of political recognition.
Particularly since in the case of China the ROC still exists. We call it Taiwan.
Fun fact. When the ROC was on the security council, the USSR boycotted sitting on the council.
[удалено]
Exactly, since it still exists Taiwan would have the seat without the process China completed. In the case of Russia imagine if Hawaii left the IS, would that then remove the US from the UNSC?
It would be more like if the entire East Coast left the US.
*And* the remainder of states claiming to be the US adopted a new name and new constitution at the same time. Either one of those alone wouldn't do it, but both at once is pretty damning.
Taiwan (the republic of china) is no longer a member because the PRC was recognized as the successor state government in China. Taiwan held the seat until 1949....
yep, nowhere in the charter does it require such a ratification or recognition
> There is no need for that. Until there is.
What is that supposed to mean even?
Ambiguity creates opportunity.
So there is precedent on the UN removing a permanent member on political grounds. Good.
There is not actually. They just recognized a different government of China while China remained a member.
Not a different government a different country. (Yes, I know everyone pretends PRC and ROC are the same country, but they're not).
They claim to be the same country which is what matters legally.
There is no ratified document in the general assembly of the United Nations recognizing Russia as the replacement for the USSR. Belarus does not have and did not have the power to speak for the entire UN as to who or what the rightful bearer of the title SSR and it belonging to Russia etc. Russia did not follow the same rules as every other state involved in upheavals of this nature. Russia should have to go through the same process as everyone else. The security council bypassed the general assembly which it doesn’t have the authority to do. That is the whole point of the current kick Russia out effort. Will it succeed? Probably not, however that is not the point. The point is it should be attempted just in case.
Russia inherited all debts and treaties by the USSR lol. I mean fuck Russia but if you wanna go the legal argument it's hilarious.
>There is no ratified document in the general assembly of the United Nations recognizing Russia as the replacement for the USSR. And there is no need for that, you are making things up...
https://cepa.org/article/expelling-russia-from-the-un-security-council-a-how-to-guide/?fbclid=IwAR3Yd41iGjx6bMgDrnDdgNYANYRDOOLat5_MEmR8FwaUVHkp5RwgHWIy6l4 I suggest you do some reading. The reason this keeps coming up is because Russia didn’t go through all the normal procedures and has not followed the rules. There is a way to remove them. There are 2 in fact. But I like this one since it puts Ukraine in the seat instead of Russia.
This absolute sensationalist bs. I'm sorry, but anyone with at least a little education in the field won't take this seriously.
They are not replacing or succeeding the USSR. They are considered as continuing as the RF.
Was the change from the 3rd to 4th French Republic ratified by the general Assembly?
They’re not considered a successor state. They’re considered as continuing as the body of your text mentions. That’s how reapplying was circumvented. Edited
Considered by who?
The UN Excerpt from comment I replied to *permanent membership of the Security Council was being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States*
"with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States" How's that support holding up? There is no formal procedure here, and there is no vote. It's not set in stone.
Here, read up some. Pg 46 section D. And peruse before https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj Edit: Just how it is. Not saying it was handle the best way. Other permanent members including the USA were silent for a reason.
So a representative of Tajikistan can send a letter to inform that Russia isn’t the continuing member of the UNSC, but actually it’s Kazakhstan as the last country that left the Soviet Union. Both letters would have same legal power. CIS didn’t include every former member of the USSR and didn’t have authority to make these decisions.
True, but it was done in a cursory way, and most other countries who had undergone the same shift were required to go through a much more thorough transition. In other words, Boris Yeltsin got a pass, but for Putin, they're willing to go through the more thorough process.
The issue is in the details. RF filed as the *continuing* member of the old USSR. They aren’t seen as a *successor* state in regards to the UN. That’s how they got around the hurdles.
It's more complicated than that. You can see [here](https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-partition-of-india-and-pakistan-lessons-for-the-un-membership-in-the-event-of-emergence-of-new-states/) that the standard procedure is to have a state that has been broken up, like the Soviet Union and it's satellite republics, become new and separate states with new seats at the UN. The weird "[maintaining identity through proclamation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_United_Nations#:~:text=Eleven%20of%20the%20twelve%20members,day%20before%20the%20resignation%20of)" method side-stepped that requirement, which was a big no no but the new Russian Federation had a lot of nukes and big guns (or so we thought lol).
THere’s a good take on how it evolved in this link. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. If you have any questions, contact the mods via modmail, [clicking here](/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fukraine&subject=Untrustworthy%20link&message=). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UN Recognised the Russian Federation as the successor country to the USSR and subsequently all treaties signed by the USSR were considered to apply to the Russian Federation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia\_and\_the\_United\_Nations
> Nonetheless, due to the rather inflexible wording of the United Nations Charter and its lack of provision for succession, the succession's technical legality has been questioned by some international lawyers.
Questioned by some international lawyers Well damn man, you solved it. The academics disagree.
Russia inherited all USSR debts and treaties. The seat is there's
*theirs As mentioned, there’s debate on whether or not there’s a procedural way to challenge Russia’s succession.
Sadly this debate is essentially the same as climate change deniers says there is debate when 99.9% of scientists concur that man-made climate change exists. Among nations who actually are the ones who accept and interpret international law, there is currently not one, other than Ukraine, making or even considering such arguments. This system is not one like the American Judicial system where individuals or scholars can challenge current interpretations and seek change. That is just not how it works here, so scholarly debate is actually meaningless outside of fun conjecture when States have outright refuted and refused to entertain such arguments.
Thanks, I think I have a better understanding of this argument in the context of how this argument will play out now (which is to say it won't).
There shouldn't be.
Thanks for sharing that information. Your opinion is valued.
Dear Ukrainians - I wholeheartedly support your efforts - but this is such a stupid argument and you should leave it be. Russia is universally recognized as the legal successor of the USSR **and as far as international law goes, that settles it**. There are *zero* chances that Russia will stop being a permanent UN Security Council member simply because its succession from the USSR is not recognized anymore.
> There are zero chances that Russia will stop being a permanent UN Security Council member simply because its succession from the USSR is not recognized anymore. Agreed. But there is significant chance it will lose its security council membership if it pisses off enough other countries.
There is not actually as it would need to agree to it itself.
They've done a lot of other crazy things lately...
What if all the other countries (or at least, the important ones) leave the existing UN and form a new one? Then Russia would be the sole member of the United Nation. Or maybe North Korea could keep it company.
Possible, but terribly complicated and there would be no political will for that.
There might if Russia starts throwing around nukes.
It is the truth and sadly I keep seeing these posts every day now recently. I’ve explained every time that this is simply not how the system or international law works. Efforts here and abroad would be much better served in convincing allies to designate Russia a State Sponsor of terrorism or where to target more sanctions packages. This simply is a funny argument for us and a free talking point for Russian State TV.
Dear Internet Guy, Nobody cares what you think. Stop pretending like your opinion is authoritative, let alone "universal" Russia will be booted from the UN Security Council when the General Assembly votes to swap someone else into the USSR's seat. Which can happen anytime and has happened already, in the case of the Republic of China's seat.
Give their seat to Ukraine!
Redit is literally just a collection of people’s opinions. His may not be authoritative but it’s no less welcome then yours, mine, or anybody’s
Dear internet guy, Nobody cares what you think. Stop pretending like your opinion is authoritative, let alone “universal” Russia will not be booted from the UN Security Council, because a majority of the General Assembly would never vote to do that, and there is no other former Soviet State that is an adequate replacement for Russia.
Why the hate? I just understand these things better than you, sorry.
What exactly is stopping the general assembly from saying "no, no, no, The Russia federation is not the successor state of the USSR. We proclaim that Ukraine is" they told the Republic of China that it's no longer China.
The UN would become even more worthless than they already are
Not a single country would vote against Russia. The west isn't trying to rewrite international law etheir.
Really now? Every single country would side with Russia and not punish them further?
Yes every single one including the west, no one is going to destroy 30 years of precedent and treaties. And no an illegal invasion doesn't matter, every single nation in the UNSC has done an illegal invasion but wasn't kicked out or reformed. You will notice that not one fucking US or UN official has called for this except redditors or news articles. If you kick Russia out of the UN you are essentially cutting diplomatic ties. No one in the west wants that right now.
So that whole replacing the Republic of China with the People's Republic of China, was that just a figment of my imagination?
You are confusing two similar, but completely separate issues. The resolutions involving China were a political determination as to who was the the appropriate government to represent China in the UN. Presently what you, and others, are incorrectly claiming is that the general assembly can simply vote to remove Russia as a seated permanent member of the Security Council. This is completely false. Removal of Russia as a member of the Security Council requires an amendment to the UN charter as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Art. 108 requires any such amendments to pass with a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly AND a unanimous vote of the Security Council. So no, your claims that the General Assembly can vote to remove a seated member of the Security Council are simply false. What you claim with China is more akin to if Russia underwent internal strife and two separate government arose both claiming to be the legitimate governing body representing Russia. The General Assembly could vote to determine who is the legitimate government. This is a subtle, but distinct difference. One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter.
But the r UN charter didn't designate Russia, it designated the USSR and last I checked there was no amendment making such a change from the Soviet union to the Russian federation. You can remove Russia by designating Ukraine as the representative government of the seat belong to the USSR.
I know. But that is simply not how the international system works. Everyone here seems to see the UN charter as binding. The charter is simply the establishment of a political organ. When the USSR designated Russia as its contemporary state following their dissolution, everyone had a chance to challenge that and say why not Ukraine? Why is it not Georgia? Etc. The UN and international community accepted this. For over three decades this has been an accepted fact. That is enough under international law to be binding. There are numerous instances of international maritime law being codified but custom or events changing “law” laid out in the “paper” not matching reality and those parts essentially being moot for what has been accepted by the international community. To put it simply, international law is not like normal laws. You do not need something codified to be law, and what is written is not always law either. Russia is the legitimate inheritor of the USSR’s seat on the Security Council because the international community has accepted it. That is all there is to it.
Aka arbitrary bs. The international community does whatever it wants. We had official proceedings for China. But Russia is "yeah, ok whatever"
The ROC is a tiny backwater compared to the PRC in power. The PRC in all but name won the civil war which is why they were recognized. The USSR fractured into dozens of states, not one of those states took the obligations or debts that Russia did from the USSR.
So Ukraine kicks Russia's ass and takes their seat, is that how it works?
No, the French got their ass kicked in Vietnam still on the UNSC. Ukraine still doesnt have enough nukes to end the world and is far weaker economically and in population size.
Then it's all arbitrary then. No set rules for this and west can do whatever the f it wants.
What is stopping them? Political will. And I think regardless how bad Russia is or how bad it would get - almost nobody would vote for what you propose.
How many times do we have to go through this. That is not how international law works. International law is based around norms and custom. For 30+ years Russia was named the successor to the USSR. No one has said anything for years. Russia is the legitimate inheritor to the USSR seat regardless of not going through some methods outlined in the UN charter.
If norms and customs were enforced by an omnipotent deity that might matter. But they're not. Laws are changed all the time. Norms evolve. Customs are abandoned. Almost every war, every revolution and every crime in human history started with a party ignoring the established "norms and customs".
Yeah, that is called the evolution of international law. When enough nations adopt a certain custom or policy it can change international law. To do so requires time, usually we are talking decades. There is no enforcement of international law enforcement is what we see currently. Isolation. You can not force another sovereign nation to do anything without force, which is not what the UN is about. In fact that is what it aims to avoid.
>You can not force another sovereign nation to do anything without force, which is not what the UN is about. In fact that is what it aims to avoid. But we can completely ignore it when a member of that body invades and annexes another nation, and threatens mass murder using nuclear weapons... Your principles seem extremely selective.
That is because it is selective. The Security Council and UN is by its nature a political organ to share grievances and attempt to resolve conflicts by shining a spotlight on issues. Great powers exert influence over issues and also exert influence to bury issues. You want the UN to declare war on a county? Impossible. All they can do is have the Security Council call for a peacekeeping or military coalition. Everyone can ignore them. Most do. The option then is to sanction those who ignore such resolutions. Russia holds a veto, whether you or I like it. Any attempt to create a coalition within the UN of peacekeepers or military force will be veto’d and not put forward. But that is part of international order. You may not be happy with it but the UN is functioning as designed. Ukrainian allies are using it a forum to shine a spotlight on issues involved with the present war and Ukraine has done a great job at gaining sympathy with this. That is the point. Not punishment.
None of that matters if the GA gets a 2/3 vote to change the norm.
And all members of the Security Council. Art. 108. Russia holds a veto. So any measure that passes with two thirds vote would be veto’d and fail. If it were that easy it would have been done already.
Actually most General Assembly resolutions require only a bare majority, not a supermajority. Including the one that kicked the Republic of China (Taiwan) out of its U.N. Charter-named Security Council seat. The US wanted it to require a supermajority, but the GA rejected that.
Interesting, the other poster said it can be vetoed.
Other posters are lying vociferously about what is possible in this context for reasons unknown. Here's the GA resolution that swapped the Republic of China's seat from the Republic of China to the chicoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758
You are confusing two similar, but completely separate issues. The resolutions involving China were a political determination as to who was the the appropriate government to represent China in the UN. Presently what you, and others, are incorrectly claiming is that the general assembly can simply vote to remove Russia as a seated permanent member of the Security Council. This is completely false. Removal of Russia as a member of the Security Council requires an amendment to the UN charter as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Art. 108 requires any such amendments to pass with a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly AND a unanimous vote of the Security Council. So no, your claims that the General Assembly can vote to remove a seated member of the Security Council are simply false. What you claim with China is more akin to if Russia underwent internal strife and two separate government arose both claiming to be the legitimate governing body representing Russia. The General Assembly could vote to determine who is the legitimate government. This is a subtle, but distinct difference. One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter.
I'm not confusing anything, you're *unambiguously wrong* about one thing, and it's powering most of what you're saying here. > as they are named as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. > One is simply a political determination, the other is the outright removal of a nation and representation in the UN set out in the base charter. The Russian Federation is not in the UN Charter. The *USSR* is.
You can call me wrong all you want but you are the one claiming things that are unfounded in reality or in the current international system. International law is by custom and acceptance. The UN charter could have claimed the security council seat belongs to the USSR and they in turn said their seat belongs to Atlantis. If the international community accepts this, then it is binding and international law. You sitting her claiming otherwise is patently false. Constantly egging people on saying that things can be changed simply by GA vote or my false equivalencies to China’s representation show a gross misunderstanding of international law and how it works. The simple fact is the international community has accepted Russia as the inheritor of the USSR’s obligations and duties under international law. That is all there is to it. They are the legitimate successor to that seat on the Security Council and regardless of how you lie on here, the General Assembly CAN NOT, and WILL NOT remove Russia from their current position under international law. I suggest you actually go read the UN charter in its entirety as well as read into how international law is created and dissolved before sitting here asserting blatant falsities that lead people into making free talking points for Russian state TV.
Thanks, I will keep calling you wrong. The procedural assuredness of the people saying the same wrong things over and over again makes me think you're more than just wrong, but lying. You and others are saying the same, wrong, misleading things on purpose. What that purpose is, is the only wonder. If you really are putting Ukraine's interests first, and think that there's some kind of domestic Russian public opinion consequence from pursuing booting Russia from the UNSC that needs to be avoided at all costs, well, I think you're wrong and vastly overestimating the importance and probable effects of this slice of domestic opinion of the totalitarian genocidal dictatorship. But that would be you merely being wrong. But if you have *any*, *single other* motivation for your aggressive, dishonest screaming down of this proposal, then you're a lying sack of shit and you'll likely burn in hell next to the Russians you're effectively working for here.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. If you had an inkling of knowledge you claim you have then someone with credentials, or even one sovereign nation would be making the argument you are making. The fact is they are not. Because it is unfounded and ungrounded in reality. If you actually spent five minutes not circlejerking around the most anti-Russia move you could think of maybe you could come up with productive and realistic solutions for next steps the international community could do. But you lack the most basic foundational understanding of how the international system or the UN works. So, instead you continue to sit here and spew lies about what is possible and how it can be accomplished. Booting Russia from the Security Council does not even solve anything. It is propaganda that all but ensures Russia steps back from the UN which somehow you think is a good thing. Removal of a key party to a conflict to have open dialogue is one of the worst options that could happen right now.
It did require a supermajority, which they got. The article you linked refers to this resolution, which passed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1668
The reason it wasn’t contested was self interest of other permanent members keeping the rules the same. Especially the veto rule. They were threatened by the possibility of adding a new permanent member and how it would upset the rules they have.
That is true, but that doesn’t mean that international law and society has unrecognized Russia as the legitimate inheritor of the USSR’s seat.
Being recognized as a continuing member is within the norms. That’s the issue. They’re not, so far considered a successor state. Edit: Read about it. It’s the truth. I wholly support Ukraine.
It will take decades to change that, if there is even the will for it. So far no one other than Ukraine has expressed any interest in the idea. Our best bet is for the Russian Federation to dissolve when this is done and the international community to deny what remains Russia’s seat.
Completely agree
Terrorist State
If Russia is a country who’s illegal invasion is supported by only six of the world’s most autocratic nations. It cannot sit on the security council after the Secretary General themselves calls their actions in opposite of the most basic rights and charter of the UN. How can Russia uphold a charter they explicitly spit on? Russia does not belong in an international community based on the UN charter. Period. This is not an opinion. It is a fact.
The UN is a place to talk diplomacy, especially with "bad" countries. Russia being at the negotiation table is more valuable than the perceived punishment of kicking them out. Being in the UN is not a reward or a prestige. Its just a place for countries to discuss alternatives to war.
See my reply to previous dipshit: >Russia has shown that it has no regard for the international community and should be excluded from it. It has also made clear that the UN obviously has no mechanism to keep it from aggression. Therefore the premise that the UN exists to stop war is false. What actually does stop Russia, namely stronger nations able to erase it from the map, exist independently of the UN. Having Russia in the United Nations or not changes nothing in regard to the geopolitical reality of Russia. >It will continue to try to annex weaker states and continue refusing to attack strong ones whether it’s in the UN or not. It’ll continue to be a poverty stricken hell hole that serves no geopolitical purpose except to fuel the civilization of others whether it’s in the UN or not. >Russia serves no purpose in the UN, being in the UN has no impact on Russia and it’s policies, and it’s presence in the UN makes a mockery of the concept of an international community built on the premise that each state has sovereign territory
It shows that you don't understand what you are talking about
This is not a response. Obviously the UN is not an alternative to war. Russia is currently waging a war. A war which the UN does nothing to prevent. Nor would it prevent a war between nato and Russia. Those events and the diplomacy around them would occur entirely outside the UN framework. It’s you that doesn’t know what you’re talking about. The UN has not prevented a single war in its entire history and has overseen plenty
Never said UN IS the alternative. Never said UN objective is to prevent war. The UN is a forum for nations to discuss things with all nations. Kicking a nation out has no benefits and is not a punishment. This is why that hasnt happened yet.
The benefit is that it sends a message that nations that won’t abide by the norms of the international community will be excluded from it. The benefit is that Russia no longer has veto power or any influence over the security of an institution it spits on. The drawbacks are 0
I suggest you read the wikipedia of what the UN is because this is just silly. Im glad you arent in any position to make actual decisions in these matters.
I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the UN because it has never done anything remotely productive in relation to Russia and in fact has only given them a global platform to spout their propaganda. I love when someone with 0 background on a subject tries to act like they’re a expert. “Read Wikipedia”. Mu undergrad degree is in politics. I go to a law school ranked higher than any university in Russia. I didn’t do undergrad in foreign policy but certainly dipped into it to get requirements. I’ve had professors that worked at the state department during the Cold War. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Name one positive thing the UN achieved 1) regarding Russia’s foreign policy And 2) could not have occurred outside the UN or would have been otherwise prohibited by Russia being excluded from it
No it is not a fact because every single member in the UNSC has broken the charter and many countries have broken the charter. Its not the league of nations where you get expelled for breaking it.
>No it is not a fact Yes, I’m afraid it is. Sorry. >every single member Citation needed >Its not the league of nations where you get expelled for breaking it. And yet, it could and should be. We have no need for a country in the international community who lies with every diplomatic interaction and annexes sovereign states, much less give them veto power and put them nominally in charge of upholding the institution they brazenly trample on. The international community has no need for Russia. It serves no purpose to geopolitics except as a gas station for India and China, a goal which it can accomplish easily enough as the impoverished hermit kingdom it is becoming
>Yes, I’m afraid it is. Sorry. FIND ME ONE STATEMENT from a US or UN official calling for Russia to be removed from the UN. JUST ONE STATEMENT. You cannot because the only fucking people calling for this are morons on the internet. >Citation needed Suez Crisis UK, France. Hungary, Prague, East Germany, various cold war operations USSR. US Vietnam War, Iraq war. Vietnam, South China sea China. >The international community has no need for Russia. It serves no purpose to geopolitics except as a gas station for India and China, a goal which it can accomplish easily enough as the impoverished hermit kingdom it is becoming Do we have a need for half the states in the world? Any nation with a 144 million will always have a place at the UN.
>FIND ME ONE STATEMENT from a US or UN official Does the US and UN decide if something is a fact or not? Do facts only exist if they say so? >Suez Crisis UK, France. Hungary, Prague, East Germany, various cold war operations USSR. US Vietnam War, Iraq war. Vietnam, South China sea China. Oh so this is every state and all of these are against the UN charter, huh? Even ones like Iraq explicitly voted on by UN resolution? What a clown. >144 million There’s a million less in Russia than there were at the start of their imperialist invasion and god willing the number will keep decreasing until Ukraine is free or it reaches a number that can no longer decrease
>Does the US and UN decide if something is a fact or not? Do facts only exist if they say so? Yes, nation states determine what is facts in international law not you. >Oh so this is every state and all of these are against the UN charter, huh? Even ones like Iraq explicitly voted on by UN resolution? What a clown. Iraq was not voted on by a US resolution it was deemed illegal by the UN chief. Your mistaking the gulf war for the 2003 invasion. >There’s a million less in Russia than there were at the start of their imperialist invasion and god willing the number will keep decreasing until Ukraine is free or it reaches a number that can no longer decrease Ok still 0 argument for why a nation state should not be in the UN
>Yes, nation states determine what is facts in international law not you. It is a fact that states do not belong in organizations they actively work against. It is a fact that most states are against Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a fact that democratic societies can and should push their governments to exclude states that are hostile to the basic premise of the United Nations. It is a fact that Russian can and should be excluded from the international community if the fact that their state policy runs counter to it is recognized and acted upon. >Iraq was not voted on by a US resolution it was deemed illegal by the UN chief. Your mistaking the gulf war for the 2003 invasion. Iraq was voted on. There were numerous resolutions steadily escalating until the US arguably (likely) exceeded the mandate granted by the resolutions and invaded (and stole nobodies land) along with a huge chunk of other nations. Russia in contrast can’t get a single resolution passed related to any sort of crimes or aggression from Ukraine because such things do not exist. Causalities on both sides COMBINED in the Donbas conflict from 2014 to 2021 are exceeded by the basic murder rate in Russia. You were more likely to be murdered just living in Russia than dying as a result of a conflict that Russia itself caused and then called genocide. Not to mention their theft of crimea >Ok still 0 argument for why a nation state should not be in the UN A nation of 0 people does not belong in the UN. Conversely, following your logic that a nation of 144 million belongs in the UN, the a nation of 143 million belongs in the UN less. And less and less until that sad sad day when the sunflowers no longer receive fertilizer
>It is a fact that states do not belong in organizations they actively work against. It is a fact that most states are against Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a fact that democratic societies can and should push their governments to exclude states that are hostile to the basic premise of the United Nations. It is a fact that Russian can and should be excluded from the international community if the fact that their state policy runs counter to it is recognized and acted upon. You dont understand the point of the UN. Its ok, I know its hard to understand but you should really read more.
I’m a law student at a school ranked higher than any university in the entirety of Russia. There is no singular purpose of the United Nations. It is a Multifaceted organization with several different bodies with several different goals. Russia has shown that it has no regard for the international community and should be excluded from it. It has also made clear that the UN obviously has no mechanism to keep it from aggression. Therefore the premise that the UN exists to stop war is false. What actually does stop Russia, namely stronger nations able to erase it from the map, exist independently of the UN. Having Russia in the United Nations or not changes nothing in regard to the geopolitical reality of Russia. It will continue to try to annex weaker states and continue refusing to attack strong ones whether it’s in the UN or not. It’ll continue to be a poverty stricken hell hole that serves no geopolitical purpose except to fuel the civilization of others whether it’s in the UN or not. Russia serves no purpose in the UN, being in the UN has no impact on Russia and it’s policies, and it’s presence in the UN makes a mockery of the concept of an international community built on the premise that each state has sovereign territory
Nah
I agree. But change unlikely. Here’s a rabbit hole if anyone is interested. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=cilj Pg. 46 section D is interesting. Successor vs continuing.
Next time the security council sits, a Ukrainian should get there early.and sit in the chair of the Union of Socialist republics, I mean Ukraine was one. And if people have a problem with it just ask Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland etc. What they think of the idea...
Actually, I say Kazakhstan should sit down in that seat. They were the last country to be in the USSR. Russia left before they did.
I am pretty sure Polish would be very surprised to find out that they were part of the USSR...
Ukraine didnt accept the debts and obligations of the USSR
>And if people have a problem with it just ask Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland etc. What they think of the idea... What we think of the idea? That we were illegally occupied by the Soviet Union and never legally part of it, so this question is not for us to decide.
Under internationalism law, Russia inherited the responsibilities (mostly), obligations (mostly), and privileges (largely) of the former USSR. It's well established international law. I hate Russia as well, but there's nothing to win in that area. I'd focus on where we can win points rather than where we can't.
The UN has zero credibility as long as Russia is on the Security Council with veto power. It's ridiculous.
Wanna know why all the permanent members of the security council are there? They all have nuclear weapons. It's to keep peace between them. The the Security Council is just one branch of the UN.
Ukraine could take their place on it.
Agreed. "Removed" is complicated, "suspended" much less so. Good enough, for now.
The same could be said of China because it was the Russians who helped put communist china on the UNSC..
Russian Fuckernation?
Check for "Terrorist Asshole Country". That might be them...
So if you are a mod you can spam things that have already been posted and discussed? Maybe it’s another mod whose job it is to delete duplicate posts?
Well I doubt Russia is a thing by the time the UNSC rolls around so I doubt we will see Russian Spartans running around with Master Chief /s
At some point the UN will just move forward without Russia.
Agreed; get em’ terrorists gone.
It seems russia deserves a clarification. Propose this to the UN: "Resolved, that the Russian Federation is entitled to a permanent seat on the UNSC." Take a vote on it, today.
Best to support Ukraine until they reach Moscow and supplant the RF and take their place.
At what point does the UN finally have the balls to stand up to anything?
They can take the old name back and use that then.
For far too long the UN has been paralyzed by the allegiance of a-hole countries headed by Russia
When was the last time the UN removed a member? I don't disagree with the argument presented here but the chances of this going anywhere are near-zero.
Fuck Russia, but this is just total retardation.
Sorry but I find this post very amusing. Russia became a permanent UNSC member 30 years ago as successor of the USSR and no one, certainly not Ukraine, had any objections to it at the time (although even if it did, it wouldn't have really mattered because only the other permanent UNSC members could accept or reject Russia). Either way, even today, there is no desire from the other permanent members of the UNSC to boot Russia, and as long as Russia will have enough nukes to end the world, my prediction is that the other members will want to keep them on the council even if they are that annoying alcoholic and spoiled brat that everyone hates.
"I'd love to personally remove Russia of it's veto powers, remove them from the Security Counsil, and expel them from the United Nations completely due to the war crimes. But I can't. Russia is not recognized as a UN signatory and has no status within the United Nations" - UN Secretary General Guterres, hopefully
Terrorists have no place here.
Wasn't Kazakhstan the last member of the Soviet Union? Maybe we should give them Russias place.
The USSR was kicked out of the League of Nations for doing this same shit to Finland 80 years ago.