The airwar, Russia and the UN Charter Article 23(1)

[fdr]

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.

Yes and no;

The UNSC seat was given to Republic of China. That happens to be Taiwan. It was removed later, but that is quite contestable. It is not unreasonable to have an amendment that precludes a belligerent to having a vote in the UNSC, it is such a blindingly obvious process failure that it can only be assumed that the Charter was written by someone suffering from shell shock. If it was a commercial contract, that would make the contract void as being an unenforceable implied (and explicit) term of the contract.

Veto power makes the system dysfunctional, and that affects the states with that power as well.

Russia needs to be booted out, and to reapply for membership of the UNGA. They have more than 20 years of abuse of process to make up for, and genocide to make restitution for.

China can reasonable argue to retain a seat at the table, by renouncing threats and intimidation of Taiwan, and by recognising Taiwan. If they do not wish to do that, then they can join Russia outside of the UN, that seems fair. That immediately elevates Taiwan as the ROC back to their seat on the UNSC. Whether they should be there, is an open matter.

Russia made undertakings of a common law nature to be permitted to sit on the UNSC, and those included non aggression and respect of the sovreignity of Ukraine and other countries borders. They breached that contract by their actions in 2014, and again in 2022. Under common law, which is the only basis that they sit in the UN at all, they are at risk of smarter people than me joining the dots and throwing them out. IIRC, when their status is questioned, they are suspended pending the outcome of any determination, I seem to recall reading words to that effect, but that could be incorrect, If correct, then this is an immediate impact to their position, as long as it takes for moribund public servants together off their backsides and act to save people from an active genocide perpetrated by a criminal state.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Ripton

Wasn't the ROC / PRC thing resolved with Resolution 2758?



Given that China has the veto and can use it when it please, do they ned a second voter on their side or would they perhaps prefer to be able to name their price when exercising the veto on Russia's behalf?

Actually, the ICJ 1971 opinion [1] found that in the same case of South Africa, the UN acted incorrectly. For whatever reason, Resolution 2758 has not been challenged as being unlawful by ROC/Taiwan, but the weight of law is on their side. There is no common law basis for their position by the action of the grossly erroneous UNR2758 of 1971. That is a matter for the ICJ once again.


[1] REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970) ADVISORY OPINION OF 21 JUNE 1971

https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files...V-01-00-EN.pdf

[Ripton]

Originally Posted by fdr

Actually, the ICJ 1971 opinion [1] found that in the same case of South Africa, the UN acted incorrectly. For whatever reason, Resolution 2758 has not been challenged as being unlawful by ROC/Taiwan, but the weight of law is on their side. There is no common law basis for their position by the action of the grossly erroneous UNR2758 of 1971. That is a matter for the ICJ once again.


[1] REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970) ADVISORY OPINION OF 21 JUNE 1971

https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files...V-01-00-EN.pdf

Interesting. Whilst there might be a way, is there a will to reopen a 50 year old matter given the the PRC has not, yet, behaved same way as Russia with regards to its neighbours?

[ORAC]

It is not unreasonable to have an amendment that precludes a belligerent to having a vote in the UNSC, it is such a blindingly obvious process failure that it can only be assumed that the Charter was written by someone suffering from shell shock. If it was a commercial contract, that would make the contract void as being an unenforceable implied (and explicit) term of the contract.

Veto power makes the system dysfunctional, and that affects the states with that power as well.

Baked in from the start - it was the only basis upon which Russia agreed to join.

If you wonder why they didn’t go ahead without them, the whole point of the UN was to replace the League of Nations which was accepted as disfunctional - because the USA had refused to ever join because they wouldn’t have had a veto.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books...9E0D0C53B836F2

.…In the early negotiations of what would become the UN Charter, the US, UK, USSR, and China agreed they would have veto in the Security Council on substantive votes. What emerged as a principle point of contention in their negotiations – primarily conducted by the US, USSR, and the. UK – was whether this should extend to voting (and hence veto use) as to situations to which they themselves were a party.

The Soviet Union refused to agree to any plan in which they might not have veto power even as to matters involving themselves. However, the US and the UK initially had qualms about such an approach. Ultimately, as detailed below, the US and the UK acquiesced to the Soviet Union’s position during negotiations at the Yalta Conference, held February 4–11, 1945…..

[Asturias56]

"Baked in from the start - it was the only basis upon which Russia agreed to join."

Don't think the Brits or the USA would have signed up without a veto either TBH

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by fdr

Oh, LW0.5,

You complain about ad hominem, and then you resort to childish crap like that. Hard to take you seriously.

You then embark on a wall of text that, when one examines it, shows how there wasn't even agreement on whether the suspension of South Africa was valid in the legal sense - and while it's an interesting case to consider, as they are/were not a member of the Security council like the big 5 are (nor was Cambodia) it's irrelevant to the case at hand.

In SA's case, when the actual leverage of the various political forms of suasion are taken into consideration - various trade sanctions, exercises of political Power by numerous Powerful nations that had the Power to make a difference - and about 20 years of that pain was inflicted on the apartheid regime, then change happened. How much the rhetoric in the UNGA contributed to that is debatable, but I do think it's fair that it made at least some contribution in setting the political stage.

FWIW: you will find that Iraq was not suspended from the UN during their 8 year war with Iran wherein they were the aggressor; simply being a belligerent, or an aggressor, is not going to cost you your seat at the UN and neither apparently, is using chemical weapons - which they did. (A bit of aviation content here: Iran-Iraq war was the first one where two nations used ballistic missiles against one another, albeit with conventional warheads)
Closer to my point on your bombast, though, Iraq is not a permanent SC member (and thus like most members of lesser status) and it still wasn't deprived of their seat.

You will also find that China's invasion of neighbor Viet Nam in 1979 didn't put their seat at risk. (That had a limited objective, and China did withdraw after a few months (which I doubt Russia intends to do vis a vis Ukraine) and the two did reaffirm their mutual borders some years later).
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is just over two months old; Iraq and Iran were at war for 8 years.

ORAC has nailed it: baked in from the start in the hopes that the UN would be more effective than the League of Nations. And it has been, warts and all. (Asturias56's point on the UK and US position squares with my reading on the UN's origins).

The Powers who defeated the Axis in WW II established their club.
Other nations wanted to join that club. No, the people who wrote the charter were neither drunk nor fools, they were canny and politically experienced, and they were in a position of Power to do something. They attempted to do something that had failed before and make it work. And what do you know, they succeeded since the UN still exists regardless of its various shortcomings.
(Interesting tidbit in its evolution: at various points starting in about 1942, the Allies referred to their collective efforts as the efforts of the United Nations (the document I have in my mind listed about 40 nations, including some of the ones in South America - it's been about 30 years since I did the research on that while writing a monograph on why, and when, sanctions do and don't work).

The fact there are advocates for making an attempt to go after Russia's seat at the UN (and at the SC) is certainly of interest.
As noted above being deprived of a seat at the UN is a serious matter - which point was made in one of your walls of text - and digging out two exceptions, neither of which was an open and shut case, means that it's not only unlikely (since once again the Security Council gets involved, and guess who is there?) but that the process is laborious at best and controversial at best.

Beyond that, another poster (actually two, Less Hair and Ripton) pointed out that China may not find it in their interest for Russia to be removed from their SC seat. Why would they support that? I am pretty sure that they have reservations about having India take a permanent seat (even though India being a permanent member is a position I've seen batted around for years).

In summary: unless something substantially changes (and I suspect that Russia using nukes would be such a substantial change) you can can wish in one hand and crap in the other and then see which one fills up first.

As an addendum: (recent article from NPR)

The reform of the Security Council, which is charged under the U.N. Charter with ensuring international peace and security, has been debated for more than 40 years.

Your long winded bombast is neither original nor novel.

There is widespread support for revamping the council to reflect current global realities rather than the international power structure after World War II in 1945 when the United Nations was created. But rivalries between countries and regions have blocked all attempts to reach agreement on the size, composition and powers of an expanded council.

Because that's the dirty truth on how politics works. And if you mess with the Security Council you may wreck it and the UN then goes the way of the League of Nations. Not only that, none of the permanent members has volunteered to step down.
Can you figure out why?

More than 200 different Security Council proposals have been vetoed, some by multiple countries, according to U.N. records. The subjects have ranged from the Korean War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to climate change, reporting on weapons stockpiles, and governance of a part of the Indian Ocean nation Comoros. The former Soviet Union and its successor Russia have cast the most vetoes by far, followed by the United States. Far fewer have been cast by Britain, China and France.

But they reserve the right; it's a form of Power.

France didn't co-sponsor the resolution and its deputy ambassador, Nathalie Broadhurst, said it does not believe the General Assembly can become the judge of the Security Council.

Once again, how politics works.

It has 31 been years since USSR's seat went to Russia. They are going to keep their seat until something extraordinary transpires to change that simple fact on the ground.

[Ripton]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Beyond that, another poster (actually two, Less Hair and Ripton) pointed out that China may not find it in their interest for Russia to be removed from their SC seat. Why would they support that? .

I think you may have misunderstood my post, rather than point out that it might not be in China's interest for Russia to be removed I asked whether it might actually be in their interest as, for a price, they would be able to be able to exercise their veto on Russia's behalf.

Who wouldn't want to hold that sort of power over their broadly aligned unruly neighbour. Surely its been part of their arsenal of methods to keep the Kims from doing anything too silly.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Ripton

I think you may have misunderstood my post, rather than point out that it might not be in China's interest for Russia to be removed I asked whether it might actually be in their interest as, for a price, they would be able to be able to exercise their veto on Russia's behalf.

Who wouldn't want to hold that sort of power over their broadly aligned unruly neighbour. Surely its been part of their arsenal of methods to keep the Kims from doing anything too silly.

I did indeed miss that distinction, thanks for spelling that out a bit.
If the Chinese want more leverage over Russia, that's a way to get it but that does leave "are they really keen on India filling that gap?" as an open question (while I suspect the answer is no, it might not be).

@NutLoose: the M-113 APC is a vehicle that packages infantry into large groups for destruction. (I am paraphrasing a "laws of combat" adage I once read in the Marine Corps Gazette, but I'm having trouble finding the exact quote)

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

It has 31 been years since USSR's seat went to Russia. They are going to keep their seat until something extraordinary transpires to change that simple fact on the ground.

Something extraordinary did happen, a UNSC Member, who happens to have contested status since 1992 has threatened nuclear war on a substantial number of UN countries. Yours included.

• Can a Member on the UNSC be removed? Yes.
• Can the UN Charter be Amended? Yes

The ICJ 1971 decision is binding on all Member states, (Art.108). It made a determination on South Africa's suspension. Russia has stated it is a continuation state, however, that was subject to a UNGA vote which has never been conducted. The argument for retaining the seat is that as Lonewolf has pointed out they have been there for 31 years without a vote, so under common law, there is an assumption of acceptance of the contract, the Charter provisions of Art.23. That has never been tested in the Russia case but was objected to in 1992 by Ukraine, and no further action has been taken as yet. Today, we have an aggressor nation, who acts in breach of Art.4, purely because they are protected by the provisions of Art.5. Russia holds the seat by common law, not by the Art.108 procedure of amendment of the Charter, which was never concluded. Russia is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, of August 23 1978 which sets forth the basis for succession rights of a signatory. Russia contends instead it is the continuation of the USSR, however, it has never concluded the amendment to the Charter, a vote has never been conducted, Under common law, a contract is subject to recission when Duress/Coercion/Undue Influence, or Anticipatory Repudiation occurs, amongst many other things.

Is that significant?

• On 8 Dec 1991 in Belarus, the 3 main states of the USSR met and determined to dissolve the USSR, this being known as the Belovezha Accords., that eventually resulted in an agreement ratified by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR on 12 Dec 91. It stated: "the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence"
• On 21 December 1991 the Alma-Ata Protocols were signed by all but 1 of the former USSR states, Georgia abstaining. At that time there were 12 remaining USSR States, 3, the baltic states had previously succeeded from the USSR under Art.72 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution that permitted free exit of any state. On 25 Dec 91, Gorbachev resigned, and Yeltsin became the President of Russia.
• On the same day, On 25 December 1991, Russian President Yeltsin informed UN SG that the Soviet Union had been dissolved and that Russia would, as its successor state, continue the Soviet Union's membership in the United Nations.

Two problems arise over how the USSR dissolution was handled by the USSR and the 12 remaining states.
1. There was a dissolution of the member state, by the terms of the Belovezha Accord and the later Alma-Ata Protocols. There was no continuing state.
2. The Declaration of Alma-Ata gave a code of conduct for all signatories, a basis for the assumption of Russia to the UN under Art.23, contrary to the need for Russia to be a continuing state, it being a dissolution voiding all prior treaties.

Spoiler

 

 

The Council of Heads of State is the supreme body, on which all the member-states of the Commonwealth are represented at the level of head of state, for discussion of fundamental issues connected with coordinating the activity of the Commonwealth states in the sphere of their common interests.

The Council of Heads of State is empowered to discuss issues provided for by the Minsk Agreement on the creation of a Commonwealth of Independent States and other documents for the development of the said Agreement, including the problems of legal succession, which have arisen as a result of ending the existence of the USSR and the abolition of Union structures.

The activities of the Council of Heads of State and of the Council of Heads of Government are pursued on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for the state sovereignty and sovereign equality of the member-states of the Agreement, their inalienable right to self-determination, the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs, the renunciation of the use of force and the threat of force, territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for human rights and liberties, including the rights of national minorities, conscientious fulfillment of obligations and other commonly accepted principles and norms of international law.

The basis of the tacit agreement for Russia to take the seat at the UN arose from the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 Dec 91, and Russia has thoroughly breached material matters to the contract. Ukraine has objected to Russia's credentials, but they have never gone back to the basics of the 91 Agreement, which Russia has repudiated by their actions on multiple occasions, and with multiple signatories.

Breaches of the Alma-Ata Declaration by Russia since 25 Dec 1991 -

1. Respect for the state sovereignty and
2. sovereign equality of the member-states of the Agreement,
3. their inalienable right to self-determination,
4. the principles of equality and
5. non-interference in internal affairs, the
6. renunciation of the use of force and
7. the threat of force,
8. territorial integrity and
9. the inviolability of existing borders, and
10. the peaceful settlement of disputes,
11. respect for human rights and liberties, including
12. the rights of national minorities,
13. conscientious fulfillment of obligations and
14. other commonly accepted principles and norms of international law.

• Through the repudiation by Russia of the material terms of the Declaration, Ukraine can argue the status of Russia as the agreed to "continuation" is invalidated.
• The break up of the USSR was stated to be a dissolution, and therefore Art.23 does not apply to Russia, common law inferences notwithstanding. Refer ICJ decision, 1971,
• If Russia's seat is based on common law, then the repudiation of the contract that permitted that would affect all matters that subsequently arose, and Russia can arguably be removed from it's seat.
• Russia's breach of international law, and of the Alma-Ata Declaration, by which it gained it's Art.23 seat, notwithstanding it was never the continuance of the USSR, is able to be put into an amendment to the UN Charter, under Art.108.
• Russia's recidivist history of human rights abuses and disregard of international law by itself is open to Art.108 amendment to remove Russia from being an Art.23 Permanent member.
• On removal of Russia as an Art.23 "continuance of the USSR, the UNGA can vote for Art.5 or Art.6 sanctions.

Interesting reading:
Williams Paul R., The Treaty Obligations of the Successor States of the Former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia: Do They Continue in Force ?, 23 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 1 (1994). https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/vi...&context=djilp

Spoiler

 

 

In wake of Ukraine invasion, diplomats consider if Russia can be removed as one of five permanent security council members

(The Guardian, 24Feb 2022)

An effort is under way to isolate Vladimir Putin diplomatically by challenging Russia’s right to a permanent seat of the UN security council on the grounds that Russia took the seat from the defunct Soviet Union in 1991 without proper authorisation.

Diplomats are also looking to see if there is a basis for removing Russia from the presidency of the council.

The presidency rotates monthly between the 15 members of the security council, allowing the office holder to shape its monthly agenda and to chair its meetings.

The Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzias was chairing an emergency meeting of the security council in New York on Wednesday night as Putin announced his assault on Ukraine. Nebenzias started reading out a text sent to his phone by the Kremlin justifying the attack. He maintained the fiction that an invasion was not under way but instead a special military operation had begun in the Donbas.

Most council members condemned Russia, one of the five permanent security council members, with the UN secretary general António Guterres taking the rare step of accusing Russia of being in breach of the UN charter.

A draft security council motion, condemning Russia and calling for its unconditional withdrawal, is being negotiated behind the scenes in New York and will probably be debated on Friday, but Russia as a permanent member will use its veto.

The Ukrainian ambassador to the UN, Sergiy Kyslytsya, told Wednesday night’s meeting that article 4 of the UN charter says the UN is open only to peace-loving states that accept the terms of the charter. He said Russia’s actions showed it could not comply with those terms.

But he also asked Guterres to distribute to the security council the legal memos written by UN legal counsel dated 19 December 1991 that the Russian Federation be permitted to join the security council as the successor to the Soviet Union. Ukraine claims the constituent republics of the USSR declared in 1991 that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and with it should have gone the legal right of any of those entities, including Russia, to sit on the council.

No decision to permit Russia to the security council was ever put to the General Assembly. The UN charter was never amended after the USSR broke up. It still references the Soviet Union, and not Russia, as one of the permanent members of the UN security council.

By contrast in 1991 China’s entry into the UN was subject to a resolution. A member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the security council.

The Russians claim its actions were taken in line with clause 51 of the charter citing self-defence.

The tension between Ukraine and Russia at the Wednesday meeting boiled over at the UN when Kyslytsya at the close of the session looked at his Russian counterpart and said “there is no purgatory for war criminals”, adding “they go straight to hell, Ambassador.”

Guterres in a brief televised statement on Thursday said the “Russian military operation is wrong, is against the charter and unacceptable”. He again appealed to Putin to stop the operation and bring the troops back to Russia.

The Russian diplomatic delegation is working hard to maintain the protection of China, which has been reluctant to abandon Russia, and would never support a motion for expulsion.

But US officials said, “Russia’s aggressive actions here carry risks for China along with everyone else. It’s not in China’s interest to endorse a devastating conflict in Europe and defy the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity it claims to hold dear.”

[Ripton]

I'm not going to get into the debate over removing Russia from the UNSC but Putin certainly doesn't seem to be trying make friends at the UN. From the Telegraph:

Russia launched missile strikes on Kyiv while Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, was visiting the city.

Two explosions were heard as the official was visiting in the first bombardment of the capital since mid-April, the president's office said.

"Missile strikes in the downtown of Kyiv during the official visit of @antonioguterres," tweeted the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The Ukrainian Defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, condemned the strikes.

He said: "While the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is visiting Kyiv, a permanent member of the UN Security Council - Russia - is launching missile strikes on the city. This is an attack on the security of the Secretary General and on world security!".

[Lonewolf_50]

Something extraordinary did happen, a UNSC Member, who happens to have contested status since 1992 has threatened nuclear war on a substantial number of UN countries. Yours included.

I lived through and served in the cold war. My ASW warfare specialty was in part concerned with keeping an eye on and hoping to neutralize (or sink) submarines filled with nuclear weapons. The ever present threat of nuclear war was a daily concern as I grew up and grew into adulthood.

Not sure what is behind your shrill overreaction here. It's a threat, yes, and I not pleased that it was made.
(I doubt many people are, to include some important people in Moscow who are not the president).
Nothing extraordinary in governments making threats and talking big.
Hell, Mr Kim in North Korea has been doing that on and off for years.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by jolihokistix

Perhaps Russia should now be formally invited to submit an application for a seat on the Security Council, 'just to clear up any lingering doubts over legality regarding their temporary acceptance following the demise of the USSR'.

That is indeed the action that should be taken, following a Chapter XIV Art.92 ICJ determination based on the 1971 rulings by the ICJ, and considering the breaches of the basis that Russia was given the seat without following Charter procedures. Alternatively, an Art.108 amendment by the UNGA can remove USSR (Russia) from the Art.23(1) status. There are specific reasons why that would be reasonable, and not affect the other PM's of the UNSC, the justification is whether the direct breaches by Russia of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, Art.1 under which they were given the already questioned (1992, 1995) status of a continuing state, as the USSR was specifically dissolved, they are therefore not a continuing body, the USSR seat ceased to exist legally on 25 Dec 91.

LW50 considers this beyond the ability of real-world politics. Maybe so. But getting the attention of the minions is a means to stop the madness that he is spouting, which in itself is sufficient to do an ARt.108 amendment to remove Russia, they have zero interest in the Art.1, Art.2 and Art.4 basis of membership in the UN.

If LW50 is right, and I hope he is not, then there is not much to stop F-Troop from driving their folly over the cliff, and taking a few billion inhabitants with them, on a best-case scenario.

So decide what your position is, and go dig a hole in the ground, or get your govt to act on removing Russia from the UN. Just the action of starting that discussion for real at least puts a position in front of F-Troop.

Russia goes to tactical nukes on the assumption that there is no resolve to respond. It is time to make that a major issue. The lunacy of commencing this war of choice in late February as the chicken entrails all lined up suggests that UN deliberation and response before May Day is "desirable".

That's 10 days away.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

I lived through and served in the cold war. My ASW warfare specialty was in part concerned with keeping an eye on and hoping to neutralize (or sink) submarines filled with nuclear weapons. The ever present threat of nuclear war was a daily concern as I grew up and grew into adulthood.
Not sure what is behind your shrill overreaction here. It's a threat, yes, and I not pleased that it was made. (I doubt many people are, to include some important people in Moscow who are not the president). Nothing extraordinary in governments making threats and talking big. Hell, Mr Kim in North Korea has been doing that on and off for years.

Then we were doing the same thing and probably doing it in the same types of aircraft.

Mr Kim isn't in a hot "special military operation" where his tanks are cooking off like frying pans, and where a considerable of his troops are declining to join in the party after the reception in the North of the country they were supposed to be liberating the natives didn't include throwing flowers at the incoming troops, it was Molotov cocktails, NLAWS, and 7.62's instead. F-Troop is slow on the uptake that the people in Ukraine didn't take kindly to being murdered and raped by uninvited F-Troops hordes.

You and I have never, since October 62 had a threatened risk that is as clear and present as it is today, with a despot who is isolated from his own cabinet by a 40' table sits brooding over the brilliance of attacking in February, and of attacking at all.

The UN is a worthless waste of money, usually. If it is going to earn it's keep, then this is one of those times that it can achieve what it was put together to do. If they don't and we all get through this, you included, without catastrophe, then they show they are irrelevant and utterly toothless. They are in fact worse than irrelevant if they do not follow their charter which is pretty bloody simple in scope. Getting the UN to do their job is at least an affirmative action to stopping F-Troop from acting unwisely. The UN has multiple means to remove Russia from the UNSC, either Art.108 of Art.92 and then by Art.5 & Art.6. [1] [2]

Shrill? maybe, but the last time the world got close to being turned into a brickette was on 26 September 1983. We were one rational person, Lt Col Stanislav Petrov [4] away from a mess, when the rational actor had to refuse to launch a massive counter-strike against a computer error.

The thousands of hours I sat overhead Deltas, Yankees, Victors and Alphas, etc, didn't have any of the immediacies of threat that exists today. NK is nowhere near the same level of danger, nor is Pakistan & India, Iran-Israel, or anywhere else on this planet.

Russia is a train wreck, and apparently, the lad in charge has anger management issues along with a distorted view on the history of his own country. Adult supervision is desirable.

There was expediency in putting Russia into the UNSC, which Williams [3] noted, also considering the Alma-Ata Protocol (Declaration) [5] as being the basis of the USA's push to accept Russia at that time. Their seat can be contested.

References:

[1] Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

[2] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE MEMBERSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, Chen, F.T., (2001) IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv. Vol 12.1,

[3] Williams Paul R., The Treaty Obligations of the Successor States of the Former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia: Do They Continue in Force, 23 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 1 (1994).

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_S...alarm_incident

[5] "THE ALMA-ATA DECLARATION". Federal Research Division / Country Studies / Area Handbook Series / Belarus / Appendix C. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 2001-01-22.

[Asturias56]

"Their seat can be contested."

How? What is the mechanism??

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"Their seat can be contested."

How? What is the mechanism??

• Art 92 response to member state > Art.23(1) enforcement of status of USSR, not Russia, based on the dissolution not continuation of the USSR.
• Art 92 response to member state > Art.23(1) enforcement of status of USSR, not Russia, based on the repudiation of the Alma-Ata Declaration Art.(1) by Russia, in dishonoring the terms of the agreement they made with the CIS states on the dissolution of the USSR. (breach, fraud in inducement, material breach of terms). That has been done on what, 5 former states of the CIS since the signing? That is habitual.
• Art.108 response to a member state objection > Amendment of Art23(1) > Art.(5) or (6) action by UNGA following a recommendation by UNSC (has issues by veto unless China is given way out)

None of these occur without a principled stand, but the mechanisms exist to set aside or amend. Set aside does not give any country a veto right, so that would be my first pick. That would lead to a removal of RUS from the UNSC, but the remaining UNSC would still be required to vote without veto on the removal or suspension from the UNGA. A UNGA resolution. to amend Art.23(1) or any part of the charter can be made if a 2/3rds majority is affirmative, and that could include any specific matter, directed in general or at RUS directly. There is no veto to the amendment process by the UNSC.


FLOWCHART OF PROCESS






[1] Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

[2] THE MEANING OF "STATES" IN THE MEMBERSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, Chen, F.T., (2001) IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REv. Vol 12.1,

[3] Williams Paul R., The Treaty Obligations of the Successor States of the Former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia: Do They Continue in Force, 23 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 1 (1994).

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_S...alarm_incident

[5] "THE ALMA-ATA DECLARATION". Federal Research Division / Country Studies / Area Handbook Series / Belarus / Appendix C. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 2001-01-22.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by fdr

There was expediency in putting Russia into the UNSC, which Williams [3] noted, also considering the Alma-Ata Protocol (Declaration) [5] as being the basis of the USA's push to accept Russia at that time. Their seat can be contested.

The US, France, UK, and China are all aware that if the Russian seat can be contested, so can theirs. (See my previous remark on the 40 years of "reform" efforts that have gone basically nowhere).
From a practical political perspective, the American endorsement of Russia as a UNSC member matters more than your emotionally based opinion because of that P word that I keep mentioning: Power.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

The US, France, UK, and China are all aware that if the Russian seat can be contested, so can theirs. (See my previous remark on the 40 years of "reform" efforts that have gone basically nowhere).
From a practical political perspective, the American endorsement of Russia as a UNSC member matters more than your emotionally-based opinion because of that P word that I keep mentioning: Power.

The mechanism exists, and that mechanism is a legal process, not an emotional one. As to power, that, and self-interest are the reason the house of cards exists as it does today. That doesn't mean that it cannot act, it just means that it needs to achieve sufficient imperative to overcome the inertia of the system that is usually moribund. It is not difficult to term an amendment such that it is not objectionable to the permanent members. There is an obligation for signatories to comply with the articles, There is a means to amend that. An amendment under §108 doesn't have any veto option from any UNSC member, it is a UNGA body matter, and yes, 2/3rd is a high bar even then, so the amendment would need to be acknowledging the PM status of the remaining UNSC members.


Seems that the UN itself has been thinking along the same lines as my comments:

Unless they agree to their own expulsion or suspension, permanent Council members can only be removed through an amendment of the UN Charter, as set out in Chapter XVIII. [Art.108]

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1115592

Can the Security Council stop a war?

Well, first let us review its mission.

The functions and powers of the Security Council are set out in the UN Charter, the Organization's founding document. It was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organizations and came into force on 24 October 1945.

The Security Council, made up of 15 members – five permanent seats belong to China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with 10 non-permanent seats that rotate by election among other UN member countries – is the body that was granted the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or an act of aggression.

What you might not know is that before 1965, the Security Council was composed of 11 members, six of which were non-permanent. The expansion to 15 members occurred after the amendment of Article 23(1) of the Charter through the adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution (A/RES/1991(XVIII)).

Although there are still some 60 UN Member States that have never sat on the Security Council, all members of the UN, however, agree under Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out decisions adopted by the Council. In other words, actions taken by the Council are binding on all UN member countries.

When dealing with crises, the Council, guided by the UN Charter, the Security Council can take several steps.

Acting under Chapter VI of the Charter, the Council can call upon parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommend methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. It can also recommend the referral of disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is widely known as the ‘World Court’ and is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, seated at The Hague in the Netherlands.

In some cases, the Security Council may act under Chapter VII of the Charter and resort to imposing sanctions or can even authorize, as a last resort, when peaceful means of settling a dispute are exhausted, the use of force, by Member States, coalitions of Member States or UN-authorized peace operations to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Importantly, the action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine pursuant to Chapter VII.

The first time the Council authorized the use of force was in 1950 under what was referred to as a military enforcement action, to secure the withdrawal of North Korean forces from the Republic of Korea.



UN Photo/Loey Felipe
The UN Security Council meets on the situation in Ukraine, 27 February 2022.

What is the ‘veto power’ and how can it be used?

The voting procedure in the Security Council is guided by Article 27 of the UN Charter which establishes that each member of the Council has one vote.

When deciding on “procedural matters”, nine members need to vote in favour for a decision to be adopted. On all other matters an affirmative vote of nine members “including the concurring votes of the permanent members” is necessary.

In other words, a negative vote by any of the permanent five (China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom or the United States) can prevent the adoption by the Council of any draft resolution relating to substantive matters.

Since 1946, all five permanent members – widely referred to as the ‘P5’ – have exercised the right of veto at one time or another on a variety of issues. To date, approximately 49 per cent of the vetoes had been cast by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and thereafter the Russian Federation (the membership of the USSR in the United Nations, including in the Security Council, was continued by the Russian Federation), 29 per cent by the United States, 10 per cent by the United Kingdom, and six per cent each by China and France.

Find more information here about vetoes in the Security Councils since 1946.

© UNICEF/Tom Remp
Families arrive in Berdyszcze, Poland, after crossing the border from Ukraine, fleeing escalating conflict.

Can the General Assembly step in when the Security Council is unable to take a decision on stopping a war?

According to the General Assembly’s 1950 resolution 377A (V), widely known as ‘Uniting for Peace’, if the Security Council is unable to act because of the lack of unanimity among its five veto-wielding permanent members, the Assembly has the power to make recommendations to the wider UN membership for collective measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.

For instance. most frequently, the Security Council determines when and where a UN peace operation should be deployed, but historically, when the Council has been unable to take a decision, the General Assembly has done so. For example, in 1956, the General Assembly established the First UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) in the Middle East.

In addition, the General Assembly may meet in Emergency Special Session if requested by nine members of the Security Council or by a majority of the Members of the Assembly.

To date, the General Assembly has held 11 Emergency Special Sessions (8 of which have been requested by the Security Council).

Most recently, on 27 February 2022, the Security Council, taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members had prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, decided to call an Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly in its resolution 2623 (2022).

As a result, on 1 March 2022, the General Assembly, meeting in emergency session, adopted a resolution by which it deplored “the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter and demanded that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.

However, unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, meaning that countries are not obligated to implement them.

UN Photo/Loey Felipe
UN General Assembly adopts resolution deploring the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter.

Can a country’s membership in the UN be revoked?

Article 6 of the Charter reads as follows:

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

This has never happened in the history of the United Nations.

Article 5 provides for the suspension of a Member State:

A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

The suspension or expulsion of a Member State from the Organization is effected by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Council. Such a recommendation requires the concurring vote of the Security Council’s permanent members.

Unless they agree to their own expulsion or suspension, permanent Council members can only be removed through an amendment of the UN Charter, as set out in Chapter XVIII.

The UN has, however, taken steps against certain countries to end major injustices. One example is the case of South Africa and the world body’s contribution to the global struggle against apartheid, by drawing world attention to the inhumanity of the system, legitimizing popular resistance, promoting anti-apartheid actions by governmental and non-governmental organizations, instituting an arms embargo, and supporting an oil embargo and boycotts of apartheid in many fields.

Along the road to ending apartheid, the Security Council, in 1963, instituted a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, and the General Assembly refused to accept the country’s credentials from 1970 to 1974. Following this ban, South Africa did not participate in further proceedings of the Assembly until the end of apartheid in 1994.

UN Photo/Mark Garten
Secretary-General António Guterres briefs reporters on the war in Ukraine.

What are the Secretary-General’s ‘good offices’?

The role of the Secretary-General as an important peace-making actor has evolved through extensive practice. The range of activities carried out by the Secretary-General has included good offices, mediation, facilitation, dialogue processes and even arbitration.

One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of his (thus far in the Organization’s 75-year history, all nine Secretaries-General have been men) ‘good offices’ – steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon their independence, impartiality and integrity, and the power of quiet diplomacy, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.

In practice, this means a UN chief can use his authority, legitimacy and the diplomatic expertise of his senior team to meet with Heads of State and other officials and negotiate an end to disputes between parties in conflict

At the end of March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked the use of his good offices and asked Under Secretary-General Martin Griffiths, the UN emergency relief coordinator, to explore the possibility of a humanitarian cease-fire with Russia and Ukraine, and other countries seeking to find a peaceful solution to the war.

[Asturias56]

Thanks - seems legally possible but practically impossible. You'd never get a 2/3 majority in the General Assembly for a start - too many people have their own nasty little wars and secrets.

[fdr]

Have your say

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Thanks - seems legally possible but practically impossible. You'd never get a 2/3 majority in the General Assembly for a start - too many people have their own nasty little wars and secrets.

Quite so, but strange things happen.
We didn't expect China to stiff-arm Russia. Didn't expect Eritrea to support Russia. Didn't expect 2/3rds majority in the last vote.

The resolution received a two-thirds majority of those voting, minus abstentions, in the 193-member Assembly, with 93 nations voting in favour and 24 against. Fifty-eight abstained from the process.
Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, were among those who voted against.

Those abstaining, included India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.

Enough outrage existed to get the necessary majority. When that vote was taken, Russia had not threatened everyone with a global war... so the 58 abstentions may also play out differently now they are collectively threatened by being on the same planet as F=Troop.

Bucha and all of the rest of the genocidal actions by Russia come with a cost. The trick would be wording it so it doesn't rock the boat. Without trying to curb Russia meaningfully, outside on non-binding resolutions, then the UN will be about as seaworthy as the Moskva, and about as useful. The UN is running out of time to make the UNSC actually function, the wordsithing would be tortuous but could be done to get rid of Russia. I'd send xmas cards to the UNSG instead of just emails then. It's not often that the bad actors target the UNSG when he is out fact finding, he probably is miffed over that.

Have your say direct to the dudes:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[Asturias56]

Well if they are going to be thrown out they'll walk first - and then we're into League of Nations 1935 territory - still there but pretty useless

The UN does somethings well and quite a few badly but they were never intended to get in the way of the larger powers.