Why waste my time dealing with someone who is in 'trasmit only mode' on this topic? Two very simple points that you continue ignore. Spoiler to confine the text that isn't aviation content to its own zone.
1. The other four permanent members of the UNSC, who have held a privileged position since the UN's inception, are going to be very wary of removing a UNSC member for cause since it puts their own seats in jeopardy simply by setting a precedent.
2. The UN Charter is at best aspirational, and like any "international law" is only as good its enforcement. Over the history of the organization that has been uneven at best. To cite but one example of hundreds, Pres GHW Bush got UN backing for the 1991 Gulf War, his son did not, but both conflicts still happened-is the latter one grounds from attempting to remove the US (and the UK?) from the UNSC? (Separate topic, rhetorical question mostly).
The UNSC sanctions after the 1991 war were supposed to be fulfilled within 90 days to get sanctions removed. They were not. (As to the running sore that they subsequently became, also a separate topic). The original cease fire agreement and the conditions for sanctions removal are a classic case of how the UN talks the talk but frequently cannot walk the walk. The collective political will failed almost immediately.
Why?
"Enforcement" is at the whim of any and every nation's self interest in terms of what they are willing to contribute in time, treasure, and expenditure of political capital in order to address problem X, Y, or Z. (See, for example India and others still buying Russian gas after the 'special operation' began and the Shell "blend" gambit that eventually came to light).
Last note:
3. Just because you can muster an argument does not make it a fact.
4.
Aviation Content: The much wished for UN No-Fly-zone (which does have precedent) that numerous posters have brought up since Feb 24 is not going to happen for the same reasons (and of course Russia's ability to veto). Interestingly, the lack of a no fly zone has not enabled Russian victory - their ability to conduct complex air operations in support of a theater level conflict is substantially less than many of us had suspected it was.
If you look at the recent river crossing mess that's in the news: despite their having smoked the crossing site and made the attempt while drones were a bit less able to 'see', their lack of even local air superiority left their troops exposed.
Granted, the video (up thread a bit) shows that the Ukrainian artillery, in a fine application of Red Army artillery doctrine, had already assessed that area as a likely river crossing site and had set up a kill sac (having pre registered their artillery). If they were at risk of airborne counter artillery measures, or had been counter attacked from the air when their positions were exposed by firing, that would not have been as effective as it was.