Originally Posted by
Less Hair
Whatever you do you considering the SC you would need China on your side doing it. Why would they want to loose some -now weakened- second voter on their side? Below the line: Unrealistic.
Still the General Assembly might get things moving somehow.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
1. Russia is not the UN Charter Article 23(1) member. Never has been, USSR is.
2. Common law principles are the only ones that may permit Russia to argue a case of continuation.
3. Under common law, coercion in relation to a contract is a basis for contract rescission, that is an immediate denial of the credentials of Russia in the UNSC and the UNGA.
The members of the UNSC are specified in Article 23(1) of the UN Charter.
PRC is not a member under Article 23(1), the Republic of China is.
POST on military aviation:
The airwar, Russia and the UN Charter Article 23(1)
I have just made a new thread that I hope the MODS will permit to be posted. It lays out for those here, the media, and hopefully those that sit in the UN and cogitate their navels a basis to remove Russia from having a vote in the UNSC through the credentials process. The stark fact is that the common law practice of the UN has been permitted to be applied as an alleviation of the threat that Russia posed, and that position either does or does not stump the explicit requirement for a vote for membership of an applicant that was never taken. As the only basis of membership can be argued and was in 971 in respect to South Africa having credentials denied, then if common law applies, so does the common law matter of coercion, duress and undue influence equally apply but have never been considered.
We have a purported UN Charter nation that doesn't abide by any part of the charter, and yet seeks protection from exclusion by the very charter they use for wiping their collective backsides. (given the roughness of the kopek, I can understand that the fine paper of the Charter would be a better sanitary aid than the Russian economy). The only defense they have against the express breach of the charter Article 23(1) is common law, so let's have common law also apply to their coercion,
undue influence, intimidation,
Unconscionability... etc.
The beauty of a denial of credentials is that it appears to circumvent the UNSC completely, so the world actually gets to have a voice. Not just Russia, who have shown by their actions that not only are they unfit to be on the UNSC, but they are also unfit to be members of the UN at all.
Thsi does impact PRC, for exactly the same reasons, and I would think that the PRC need to come to an accommodation over the SCS, and Taiwan who is the legitimate UNSC member, to rejoin the community of nations.
This post is not aimed solely at PPRuNers, it is to the media, and the wider community including the UN itself, as a manner to remove the current threat of nuclear war that is cavalierly threatened by the Russian government officials and their spokespersons.
The concept of a winnable nuclear was is nonsense. Turning the only known marble in the known universe that has supposedly intelligent life, to a wasteland uninhabitable for 20,000 years seems to be irrational. Simulations of nuclear wars are only that, simulations, and they always end up with the massive loss of life, as in 20-80% of civilization on average, and can easily achieve 100% loss. I spent my youth tracking nuclear ballistic submarines, they concentrate your views on matters of war and the insanity that is spouted by the belligerent at this time.
I invite cogent comments on justifications to permit the voiding of the credentials of Russia in the UNGA and UNSC. If there is general annoyance with that as it appears idealistic, remember before you hit send that the UN has previously denied credentiuals. They did it to Cambodia, so contrarians, feel free to either PM me or you can email me directly for a discussion, but the facts are the facts.