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

[fdr]

Originally Posted by langleybaston

That's a yes, then?

I want to copyright "BU", I am sure it will come in handy over the years.

1. Is not the denial of gas to Poland and Bulgaria yet another huge mistake, if not the biggest?
   1. It adds pressure to prospective wavering opponents, but that is not the case for Bulgaria or Poland. Long term it is an own-goal, with catastrophic effects on Russia.
   2. It immediately hurts Russia's funding of it's war. All nations will be moving away from Russian energy as well as any other product reliance with such a flakey country. f-Troop just perfected sanctions on Russia.
2. In geopolitical and economic terms this will surely echo down the years, as customers [not only for gas] take note that the implied threats are, as circumstances change, actually carried out.
   1. yup. F-Troop just wrecked their own economy for the foreseeable future.
   2. Did the west pay Putrid to frag his own economy, and then blame it on generals and bad wiring?
3. Hitherto BU [BU = Before Ukraine] Western pragmatism's default was "they would not dare do it because it would hit them in the pocket". Wrong. That Rubicon has been crossed.
   1. yup. New bloopers on fails of governments in the future...
4. This is like Putin leading the King to a trick, without being sure if the ace and all the trumps have gone.
   1. Decisions are made by imperfect. people, on emotions, and with bias on the facts that are presented.
   2. Dictators guarantee they get bad info because they are dictators.
5. The scramble for energy security will now hot up to fever pitch. Nuclear, anybody?
   1. ​​​​​​​Thorium Fast Breeder
   2. Thorium Pebble Bed Modular Reactors
   3. There is no PWR that cannot fail, the design has to be stable with a coolant system casualty, no PWR is.
   4. FRG had THTR-3000, a PBMR(MPBR), and was spooked by a minor feed fault that coincided with Chornobyl. Well, 80 minor events. It was a learning experience, and no one ended up with 2 heads.
   5. MSRs were the very first power reactor... they make some sense, more than PWRs. MSR avoids the issues of production that seems to beset the THTR.
      1. ​​​​​​​PWRs use little of the fuel for energy before they have to be replaced.
      2. Thorium cycle can reuse PU, U, at low enrichment and burn the fuel up far more.
      3. Th is relatively abundant, much more that U is.

Designing a power station that can be impacted by a positive void coefficient is up there in the own goal records. putting a moderator in the end of a control rod is another, "is bad" idea. Shooting at nuclear reactors "is bad"...

So, yes, kind of.

IAEA Thorium Reactor Benefits and Challenges

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by fdr

I wanted to say "Like Korea, c1950" but I thought the term peace was due to be exercised. The Charter comes with an absolute right for self-defense, and also a policy of collective defense by Charter signatories against aggressor nations.

There is no legal right that Russia has to invade a sovereign nation, and doing so just because you happen to have nukes is no basis for global security.

Very good posts by both of you - Lonewolf50 and FDR - thank you.

I would also say it’s time to strip Russia if it’s Security Council seat. Ukraine might be a good candidate or Poland.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

He knows he’s losing big time, same with Laugharov, it all smacks of desperation. The only country interfering in Ukraine is Russia.

1. Russia's president says any country interfering in Ukraine will be met with a "lightning-fast" response
2. Vladimir Putin says Russia will use "tools no one else can boast of having" if anyone "creates unacceptable threats"
3. Russian energy giant Gazprom says it has cut gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria over their refusal to pay in roubles
4. The EU accuses Russia of using energy to try to blackmail countries supporting Ukraine
5. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has meanwhile accused Russian special services of carrying out attacks in a breakaway region of Moldova

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804

This is the head of F-Troop threatening "lightning-fast" responses against... Russia? This is definitely the "Gang that couldn't shoot straight". As you note, the only country that is interfering in Ukraine is Russia. He's making up good material for Eddie Izzard to work with to follow up the "Death Star Canteen" and "Do you have a flag?" skits.

I looked on Amazon and couldn't find magic tools, found magic thread and other accouterments of the art of magicians. Did find some references for dictators on how to cope with hyperinflation and still keep your butt out of a National Tomb, titled "international relations for dummies". Had a companion volume, "When to plan attacks on a muddy country to avoid visits to proctologists for relief".

Gazprom is assisting F-Troop to implode their economy. The rest of us were wanting that to be done by Europe, India, China etc. At least Gazprom was kind enough to put a hand grenade under their jowls only after the temperature in Europe was rising for Spring.

Re Moldova (Trans- whatever, the place that is in a time warp of Stalin, and the USSR... that one, Ladas everywhere...) could just be bad luck and bad wiring... what it won't be is 3rd parties, No country in its right mind would be expanding the war, and the only country known to not be in its right mind is the home of F-Troop, to whit, Russia. Doesn't take Benedict Cummerbund & Martin Freeman to point a finger at F-Troop.

Death Star Canteen

Flags

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

I would also say it’s time to strip Russia if it’s Security Council seat.

There is no authority that can actually do that. We've been over this before, in this thread and the JB one. There are five members who are more equal than the others, and Russia is one of those five.
You may as well rant about stripping the US of its Security Council seat.
Not gonna happen.
The UN exists because there was enough political will to make it exist, and enough to keep it existing, warts and all. (Korea was quite the test of that new organization at the time....)
It does not have to exist.
Like the League of Nations before it, the UN can stop existing. I don't think we'll be better off if that's the case, but it's one of the possible futures of this world. It works (such as it does work) because the Powers so wish it.

Ukraine might be a good candidate or Poland.

How about India or Brazil?

Originally Posted by fdr

A few squadrons of F-22 and F-35 would be nice, their life expectancy would be OK in the air, just being on the ground would be unhealthy.

The planes aren't much use without trained crews to fly them, trained techs to keep them running, and the logistic tail to support them. They are complex weapons systems. (Your assessment on their vulnerability on the ground I concur with). And Death by Tray is certainly a classic.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

There is no authority that can actually do that. We've been over this before, in this thread and the JB one. There are five members who are more equal than the others, and Russia is one of those five.
You may as well rant about stripping the US of its Security Council seat.
Not gonna happen.
The UN exists because there was enough political will to make it exist, and enough to keep it existing, warts and all. (Korea was quite the test of that new organization at the time....)
It does not have to exist.
Like the League of Nations before it, the UN can stop existing. I don't think we'll be better off if that's the case, but it's one of the possible futures of this world. It works (such as it does work) because the Powers so wish it.

How about India or Brazil?
The planes aren't much use without trained crews to fly them, trained techs to keep them running, and the logistic tail to support them. They are complex weapons systems. (Your assessment on their vulnerability on the ground I concur with). And Death by Tray is certainly a classic.

And yet a motion to remove Russia from the UNSC is being tabled in the UNGA. The means by which it may be removed there needs a measure of support, so perhaps various countries need some commentary from their own constituents.

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

There is no authority that can actually do that. We've been over this before, in this thread and the JB one. There are five members who are more equal than the others, and Russia is one of those five.
You may as well rant about stripping the US of its Security Council seat.
Not gonna happen.
The UN exists because there was enough political will to make it exist, and enough to keep it existing, warts and all. (Korea was quite the test of that new organization at the time....)
It does not have to exist.
Like the League of Nations before it, the UN can stop existing. I don't think we'll be better off if that's the case, but it's one of the possible futures of this world. It works (such as it does work) because the Powers so wish it.

How about India or Brazil?
The planes aren't much use without trained crews to fly them, trained techs to keep them running, and the logistic tail to support them. They are complex weapons systems. (Your assessment on their vulnerability on the ground I concur with). And Death by Tray is certainly a classic.

I understand that the Security Council itself cannot change its membership but I think the General Assembly does have such authority. Anybody remember how PRC replaced Taiwan?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by fdr

And yet a motion to remove Russia from the UNSC is being tabled in the UNGA. The means by which it may be removed there needs a measure of support, so perhaps various countries need some commentary from their own constituents.

Your lack of sources to support your fantasy are noted. When you cite sources for that action, I'll be interested.
"Well," as Judge Smails said, "We Are Waiting!"

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

I understand that the Security Council itself cannot change its membership but I think the General Assembly does have such authority. Anybody remember how PRC replaced Taiwan?

I don't care what you think; you have demonstrated a lot of wishful, emotional thinking on this topic.
As they say in Missouri: Show Me!
I'll be here sipping my gin and tonic.

Anybody remember how PRC replaced Taiwan?

Anyone know who Henry Kissinger is?
Sorry, we need some aviation content: rumor has it that Henry Kissinger did Jill Saint John on Air Force One.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Your lack of sources to support your fantasy are noted. When you cite sources for that action, I'll be interested.
"Well," as Judge Smails said, "We Are Waiting!"

Oh, LW0.5, In fact there has been a proposal to clip their wings.

UN to debate Security Council permanent member veto power

The proposal requiring the five UNSC members to justify their use of veto comes in the wake of Russian invasion of Ukraine.

19 APRIL 2022.

Go find it yourself, I am offended by your attitude sir.

For your information, the UNSC seat was also only given to the USSR, and in the dissolution of the USSR, there was no legally binding acceptance that Russia would assume the seat in the UNSC, so Ukraine has as much right to being the permanent member as F-Troop has. The legal argument surrounding the questionable status of Russia as a member of either the UNSC or in fact the UNGA is quite good reading. I'll let you research taht yourself, that way you won't need to wake up in a bad mood and attack Nutloose or me.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

I understand that the Security Council itself cannot change its membership but I think the General Assembly does have such authority. Anybody remember how PRC replaced Taiwan?

The Permanent member to the UNSC was USSR, and it doesnt exist. They did not follow the correct procedure as far as the legal arguments appear to go. LW 0.5 can find his own references, but here is a hint:

Push to end Russia's status as permanent UNSC member gains steam

Talk of stripping Russia of its status at the UN has escalated since the Ukraine invasion began.

3 MAR 2022
Washington is "investigating the prospects" of expelling Russia as one of the five permanent Security Council members, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told American lawmakers on Wednesday.

No decision has been made on whether to try to achieve such an outcome, which would likely require changes to the UN's charter.

Sherman's comments came after the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn Russia for last week's invasion of Ukraine and demand that Moscow withdraw its forces from the country immediately.

The rebuke was issued through a non-binding resolution after a failed vote last Friday by the Security Council, where Russia used its veto power as a permanent member to block the resolution, the report said.

Talk of stripping Russia of its status at the UN has escalated since the Ukraine invasion began.

Some US lawmakers have called for removing Russia from the Security Council, RT reported.

Ukraine's government has repeatedly urged the UN to reconsider Russia's status on the Security Council.


There are many ways to "skin the cat", and there is a reasonable basis to have a go at doing that. Russia was never made a permanent member by the UNGA, It assumed that it would be on the fall of the Soviet Union, and it was not correctly done. the legal argument goes that the USSR in it's collapse never nominated a replacement for it's seat to the UNGA, and the UNSC, and as it doesn't exist now, it cannot post-fact do so. Therefore Russia has no chartered right to be on the UNSC, in any form, let alone an PM, and let alone with veto authority. Details matter.

Now the litigation of that is up to the UN, and we are at a time and place where it is a reasonable time to have that discussion, after all, Russia is now shown to be a corrupt and dysfunctional enterprise, and it has already taken retaliation to many of the members of the UNGA, Their hold over Eritream and NOrth Korea notwithstanding....

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by fdr

The Permanent member to the UNSC was USSR, and it doesnt exist. They did not follow the correct procedure as far as the legal arguments appear to go. LW 0.5 can find his own references, but here is a hint:

Push to end Russia's status as permanent UNSC member gains steam

Talk of stripping Russia of its status at the UN has escalated since the Ukraine invasion began.

3 MAR 2022
Washington is "investigating the prospects" of expelling Russia as one of the five permanent Security Council members, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told American lawmakers on Wednesday.

No decision has been made on whether to try to achieve such an outcome, which would likely require changes to the UN's charter.

Sherman's comments came after the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn Russia for last week's invasion of Ukraine and demand that Moscow withdraw its forces from the country immediately.

The rebuke was issued through a non-binding resolution after a failed vote last Friday by the Security Council, where Russia used its veto power as a permanent member to block the resolution, the report said.

Talk of stripping Russia of its status at the UN has escalated since the Ukraine invasion began.

Some US lawmakers have called for removing Russia from the Security Council, RT reported.

Ukraine's government has repeatedly urged the UN to reconsider Russia's status on the Security Council.


There are many ways to "skin the cat", and there is a reasonable basis to have a go at doing that. Russia was never made a permanent member by the UNGA, It assumed that it would be on the fall of the Soviet Union, and it was not correctly done. the legal argument goes that the USSR in it's collapse never nominated a replacement for it's seat to the UNGA, and the UNSC, and as it doesn't exist now, it cannot post-fact do so. Therefore Russia has no chartered right to be on the UNSC, in any form, let alone an PM, and let alone with veto authority. Details matter.

Now the litigation of that is up to the UN, and we are at a time and place where it is a reasonable time to have that discussion, after all, Russia is now shown to be a corrupt and dysfunctional enterprise, and it has already taken retaliation to many of the members of the UNGA, Their hold over Eritream and NOrth Korea notwithstanding....

Thank you for the thoughtful and well-sourced post.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by fdr

Go find it yourself, I am offended by your attitude sir.

Your willful ignorance on how politics really works is your problem, not mine.

Sherman's comments came after the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn Russia for last week's invasion of Ukraine and demand that Moscow withdraw its forces from the country immediately.

The UN General assembly has condemned a great many things over the years, and it amounts to a lot of hot air in most cases. When the UNSC, on the other hand, takes a decision sometimes things happen. (Back to the 1950 Korea example, at this point). I also note the sophistry provided in re the alleged distinction between Russia and the USSR. The argument from ignorance is noted, and not found worthy.

For Global Nav: If you find a load of political rhetoric to be 'well sourced' then your need to calibrate your standards a bit. Political rhetoric is, like UN General Assembly pronouncements, mostly wind.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by GlobalNav

Thank you for the thoughtful and well-sourced post.

The means that China replaced TWN is another matter, and the whole PRC-TWN issue needs to be cleared up once and for all, but that would seem to be a forlorn hope.

(Actually, China, PRC, has also the same issue as Russia on the UNSC, the entity that existed at that time does not exist, and the process to replace the seat has never been ratified. That is an incomplete business of the UN as well. Article 23(1) states who is a member and neither Russia or PRC is named, they did not exist at that time. The UN was involved in the Korean "Police action"/War, as ROC was still in existence, and in fact was relocated to Taiwan. Taiwan is still formally known as ROC.... )

Russia had every right to become a member of the UNGA, as indeed so does TWN, if the UN had any moral fortitude to follow the charter. By the same argument that PRC has with TWN, Ukraine can make the case, and should that Russia has no charter right to UNSC membership. Had the USSR followed Charter process, then they could have, equally, Ukraine could have, but they didn't, and Russia is an illegitimate member of the UNSC and has only held that status due to the limp response from the UN as a body. A simple suggestion is that any direct participant in a conflict should be required to abstain from any related resolutions. We require that in every other matter of jurisprudence or governance, yet the world's safety program, the UN couldn't get that right? Time to sort out a few basic facts, and while we are at it, ICAO and national NAA's need to be overhauled. It is insanity to have some 200-odd NAAs rewriting a standard that is provided from a governing body. That would at least stop the empire-building of some of our aviation regulators who spend time finding ways to be noncompliant with ICAO SARPS.

• If Russia has no legitimate right to the seat, then Article 12 does not stop action.
• If Russia is behind in its payments to the UN, then it has no voting rights. under Article 19.
• Article 6 applies if USSR doesn't vote against it. Russia should not have a seat on the UNSC under Article 23.

Cats, skins, manner for disposition of

Chapter V: The Security Council

COMPOSITION

Article 23

1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
2. The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
3. Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.

For LW 0.5, herewith find the reference to the Charter:
LW0.5 REFERENCE TO THE CHARTER

Chapter II: Membership

Article 3

The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110.

Article 4

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Article 5

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.

Article 6

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.
...

Chapter IV: The General Assembly

COMPOSITION

Article 9

1. The General Assembly shall consist of all the Members of the United Nations.
2. Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.

FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

Article 10

The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters.

Article 11

1. The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.
2. The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.
3. The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.
4. The powers of the General Assembly set forth in this Article shall not limit the general scope of Article 10.

Article 12

1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
2. The Secretary-General, with the consent of the Security Council, shall notify the General Assembly at each session of any matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security which are being dealt with by the Security Council and shall similarly notify the General Assembly, or the Members of the United Nations if the General Assembly is not in session, immediately the Security Council ceases to deal with such matters.

Article 13

1. The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of:
   1. promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification;
   2. promoting international co-operation in the economic, social, cultural, educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
2. The further responsibilities, functions and powers of the General Assembly with respect to matters mentioned in paragraph 1 (b) above are set forth in Chapters IX and X.

Article 14

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. The General Assembly shall receive and consider annual and special reports from the Security Council; these reports shall include an account of the measures that the Security Council has decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security.
2. The General Assembly shall receive and consider reports from the other organs of the United Nations.

Article 16

The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.

VOTING

Article 18

1. Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.
3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

Article 19

A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Your willful ignorance on how politics really works is your problem, not mine.

The UN General assembly has condemned a great many things over the years, and it amounts to a lot of hot air in most cases. When the UNSC, on the other hand, takes a decision sometimes things happen. (Back to the 1950 Korea example, at this point). I also note the sophistry provided in re the alleged distinction between Russia and the USSR. The argument from ignorance is noted, and not found worthy.

For Global Nav: If you find a load of political rhetoric to be 'well sourced' then your need to calibrate your standards a bit. Political rhetoric is, like UN General Assembly pronouncements, mostly wind.

Do read the Charter before making ad hominem attacks. Your apparent disregard of the agreement of 1942 and the Charter itself seems to come from blissful application of alternative facts, which is the ultimate position of a Sophist.

If you consider the USSR's seat was legitimately taken by Russia, then by all means provide the evidence that the USSR nominated Russia to be it's successor, and that the nomination was itself added to the Charter as an amendment, as required under the Charter. The Charter is readily available at

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text

On information and belief, the current Charter is that published above, and that gives multiple basis for removal of Russia from the UNSC, and for subsequent suspension from the UNGA.

Please provide the evidence of that, or delete your ad hominem posts on Nutloose and FDR

A determination by Judge Judy is not going to be acceptable. Show the evidence that Russia was formally nominated, and that Article 23 was so amended to show RUSSIA as the member.



Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

Your lack of sources to support your fantasy are noted. When you cite sources for that action, I'll be interested.
"Well," as Judge Smails said, "We Are Waiting!"

As some background to the motion that has been reported to be drafted, note the European Journal of International Law commentary. Then read McLeod's commentary, and then look at the dates of the Alma-Ata Protocol. The details of the date when things happened there are pretty important to the matter, as is the fact that to this day, the Charter Article 23(1) has not been amended, and there is no legal right under the Charter as it stands for Russia to be sitting in the UNSC at all. Thats a point for litigation, and as indicated by McLeod it is the matter raised by Ukraine. (A draft motion for the UNSC and UNGA by another country has recently been mentioned, I can only recall that it was a surprise party).

It is an unusual situation to get to, but then Russia has made this an unusual matter. At the same time, ROC becomes the subsequent matter, as PRC is not an Article 23(1) member, ROC is, that is Taiwan. The fact that the UN has not taken action to date is that Russia's actions have not been sufficiently egregious, however, now they may be sufficiently unacceptable, threatening nuclear war to support a criminal enterprise of annexation of a sovereign country.

I am in fact looking for the document I read that covered the drafting of the challenge to Russia's credentials. The most striking takeaway of the document was the proposal did not come from a party that was expected, which at least means some countries have an interest in the application of the principles of the Charter. The action of the UNSC is the single greatest failure of the UN. All of the nice concepts fall to nothing as the belligerents are not automatically recused from action within the UNSC. Most UNSC PMs would be cautious about such a change, but it would act to make the system function. Adding suspensions to any related party pressuring another voting member could be included, to attempt to get towards equity.

https://www.ejiltalk.org/could-russi...nited-nations/

March 1, 2022

Could Russia be Suspended from the United Nations?

Written by Rebecca Barber


The General Assembly is currently meeting in Emergency Special Session on Ukraine, and will likely pass a resolution condemning Russia’s aggression, demanding the withdrawal of troops, and urging a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Such a resolution will be an important step, but also begs the question: if these appeals for peace are not heeded, what could be the Assembly’s next step?

The possibility of the General Assembly recommending sanctions has been considered in a previous post on this forum. This post considers the possibility of the Assembly going further still, and suspending Russia from the UN.

The possibility of a member state being suspended from the UN is described by article 5 of the UN Charter. That article states that: ‘a member of the UN 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.’ In case of any ambiguity in the text of this article (which there really isn’t), the UN Office of Legal Affairs has confirmed that the General Assembly may only exercise its power of suspension if: (a) preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council against that member; and (b) the Council has recommended the suspension (see here, at p. 170).

Article 5 does not provide a basis for Russia’s suspension from the UN, because the Security Council hasn’t taken preventive or enforcement action against Russia, and even if it had, Russia would presumably veto a resolution recommending its own suspension. It’s not possible to get around the veto issue by arguing that a Security Council resolution recommending suspension would be procedural in nature – and as such, not subject to the veto – because article 18(2) of the Charter lists ‘the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership’ as an ‘important question’.

Article 5 of the Charter is not completely the end of the road on suspension, however.

There are two dimensions to a state’s participation in the UN: the actual membership of the state (the subject of article 5 of the Charter); and the representation of that state at the General Assembly’s sessions. Matters of representation are considered in the context of the General Assembly’s credentials process, which is the process by which the Assembly assesses the eligibility of individual delegates to represent their states at the Assembly’s annual sessions. The process is essentially procedural in nature. It is regulated not by the UN Charter but by the Assembly’s rules of procedure, which state that ‘[t]he credentials of representatives … shall be submitted to the Secretary General if possible not less than one week before the opening of the session’, and that they shall be ‘issued either by the Head of the State or Government or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.’

While the credentials process is usually a procedural one, from time to time the process inevitably requires the General Assembly to make a judgment regarding the legitimacy of the government (or regime) that a delegate represents. Such is the case when two competing authorities claim at once to represent their state, as was the case last year in relation to Afghanistan (Taliban vs deposed government in exile) and Myanmar (junta vs National Unity Government). In such situations, the credentials process effectively gives the General Assembly the power to decide which authority should be regarded as the legitimate representative of the state – at least so far as the UN is concerned.

Russia, however, is not a case of competing authorities claiming at once to represent the same state, but one government seriously violating peremptory norms of international law as well as the principles of the UN. Can the credentials process feasibly be exploited to suspend a state in such circumstances, as a way of circumventing article 5? The answer is yes, because it has been done before.

The General Assembly has on two occasions used the credentials process to effectively suspend a state from the UN. The most recent was in relation to Cambodia in 1997, when the Assembly received credentials from two competing authorities, both claiming to represent Cambodia. The Assembly decided to defer its decision on credentials, explicitly on the understanding that Cambodia’s seat at the Assembly would remain temporarily unoccupied (see here and here). The particular circumstance pertaining to that decision was that there was a process of national reconciliation underway, which the Assembly did not wish to influence (see discussion here).

The much more pertinent example is South Africa in 1974. In the context of international condemnation of apartheid, in the early 1960s the General Assembly passed a resolution calling on the Security Council to consider expelling South Africa from the UN pursuant to article 6 of the UN Charter, however the proposal was not supported by the Council’s five permanent members. In the early 1970s the Assembly consistently declined to accept South Africa’s credentials (see here, for eg), and in 1974, the General Assembly President ruled that this meant that South Africa was excluded from participating in the work of the UN. Specifically, the President said that: ‘on the basis of the consistency with which the General Assembly has regularly refused to accept the credentials of the delegation of South Africa, one may legitimately infer that the General Assembly would in the same way reject the credentials of any other delegation authorised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa to represent it, which is tantamount to saying in explicit terms that the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work’ (see Jhabvala, p. 615). Thus, as Alison Duxbury explains, ‘in using the credentials process in this way, the General Assembly effectively sidestepped the article 5 requirement that both the major political organs of the UN must be involved in a suspension decision’.

The legality of the Assembly’s action in relation to South Africa is contested. A 1970 opinion of the UN Legal Counsel asserts that ‘the participation in meetings of the General Assembly is … one of the important rights and privileges of membership’, and that ‘suspension of this right through the rejection of credentials would not satisfy the [requirements of article 5] and would therefore be contrary to the Charter.’ On this view, with which several scholars agree (eg, Schermers and Blokker, p. 222), the Assembly’s exclusion of South Africa was clearly ultra vires. Other scholars disagree, however. Jhabvala, for example, asserts that the suspension of South Africa was intra vires, if only because of the ‘legal gap’ and ‘political latitude’ that characterises the credentials rules and process; and even Schermers and Blokker concede that ‘there is general disagreement’ regarding whether the credentials process can be used to exclude a state from the UN – they suggest that ‘generally Western countries reject’ such a possibility, whereas ‘other countries are mostly in favour of it’. Other scholars take a middle ground, regarding the Assembly’s practice on South Africa as perhaps not quite illegal, but as ‘sui generis, not as establishing a practice that substitutes the General Assembly for the Security Council as the UN organ empowered to suspend or expel members’ (Halberstam, p. 191).

Whatever view one takes on the question of legality, the fact is that the General Assembly has used the credentials process to exclude a state from the UN. On this point, it is pertinent to recall the well-established principle applicable to the interpretation of the constituent instruments of international organisations, that such organisations are – as a starting point at least – responsible for interpreting their own powers. In the case of the UN, this was made clear at the time of the drafting of the Charter. The question of which organ should be responsible for interpreting the Charter was assigned to a sub-committee, and the report of that committee – ultimately accepted – said that each organ of the UN was expected to ‘interpret such parts of the Charter as are applicable to its particular functions’ (see Goodrich, p. 251). Louis Sohn asserts simply that ‘if the General Assembly thinks action is necessary, it can take it.’ In relation to South Africa in 1974, the Assembly did think that action was necessary, and it did take it, and there is no reason in international law that it could not do so in again in relation to Russia/Ukraine. The credentials of Russia’s current representative to the UN were accepted by the General Assembly last year, but under the Assembly’s rules of procedure it is open to any member state to raise an objection to that representative, in which case he would remain seated provisionally, ‘until the Credentials Committee has reported and the General Assembly has given its decision’.

It’s unlikely to be the option pursued in the Assembly’s first resolution on Ukraine, but given the extent to which international law is being undermined, nothing should be off the table.



https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ukraine-invasi...curity-council

Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council?

Andrew MacLeod Visiting Professor, Department of War Studies Kings College

25 February 2022

...Continuing states

But why did Russia get the USSR’s seat following its dissolution? In 1991, the Alma-Ata Protocol was signed by the majority of Soviet republics, declaring the end of the Soviet Union and agreeing that Russia would take over the USSR’s seat. Russia then wrote to the UN requesting that the name USSR be amended to Russian Federation and that nothing else would change.

International lawyers have questioned the legality of this and have debated whether the dissolution of the USSR should have dissolved its seat at the Security Council. This is what Ukraine is now arguing. The whole matter rested on whether Russia was the “Successor State” or a “Continuing State” under international law. In 1991, Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko – a recent Russian ambassador to the UK who was at that time a mid-level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow – wrote to argue that Russia should inherit the permanent seat.

He set out that a Successor State is a new country formed from the dissolution of an older one – and had no continuing rights or liabilities. All rights and liabilities would need to be renegotiated. A Continuing State, however, is the largest part of a country after a small part has broken away. It keeps the former rights and liabilities of the old country – including membership to international organisations and embassies. Yakovenko concluded Russia was the Continuing State.

In 1991, I worked as a young lawyer on a case before the High Court of Australia: Baltic Shipping v Dillon. A Soviet ship sank in New Zealand killing one crew member and causing harm to many Australian passengers. The Baltic Shipping Company was owned and insured by the Soviet government. But as the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, Baltic Shipping’s lawyers argued in court that the liability became uncertain because nobody knew who the real owners or insurers were. As the lawyers in the case, we then raised the question of Security Council membership. The Russian government quickly admitted liability for the sunken ship, not wanting to lose the Security Council seat.


LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970)

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

"Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), the ICJ dealt with South Africa’s argument that SC Resolution 284 (1970), in which the Security Council requested the Court’s opinion, was invalid as it was not adopted by an affirmative vote of all five permanent members (the UK and the USSR had abstained, as had Poland). Article 27(3) of the UN Charter explicitly requires that UNSC resolutions (other than procedural decisions) be adopted with ‘the concurring votes of the permanent members’. South Africa’s contention that this resolution could not have been adopted — as an abstention is not the same as a concurring vote — was in accordance with the literal text of the UN Charter".

Comment:
It goes on to say that the counterargument can be made of acceptance of practice, however, that is a matter of litigation, the Charter is clear; Russia is not a listed member of the UNSC under Article 23(1), and has never been ratified as the continuing member, and is thus illegitimate. The failure of the UNGA and UNSC to act accordingly has been due to coercion with the implied threat of a nuclear state, and that argument would then obviate the defense that Russia has been "accepted" as the legitimate continuing member. In common law, a coerced practice is considered void, and that seems to have been overlooked by the apologists to Russia maintaining a seat in the UNSC.

[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'.

[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.

[fdr]

SITREP
The air war in Russia, and the impact to aircraft leasing, airlines, and aircrew, civil and military arise from the naked aggression of a nuclear bully, that has recently threatened nuclear war as a consequence.

1. The USSR imploded in 1991.
2. The constituent parts of the former USSR met and produced the Alma-Ata Protocol on December 21 1991. REF: https://www.prlib.ru/en/history/619829
3. The UN Charter Article 21(1) states who are the members of the UNSC. It has never been amended. REF:
4. In 1971 the ICJ wrote a court opinion Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), the ICJ dealt with South Africa’s situation at that time. REF: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files...V-01-00-EN.pdf
5. In the early 1970s the Assembly consistently declined to accept South Africa’s credentials. in 1974, the General Assembly President ruled that this meant that South Africa was excluded from participating in the work of the UN. Specifically, the President said that: ‘on the basis of the consistency with which the General Assembly has regularly refused to accept the credentials of the delegation of South Africa, one may legitimately infer that the General Assembly would in the same way reject the credentials of any other delegation authorised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa to represent it, which is tantamount to saying in explicit terms that the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work’ REF: https://www.ejiltalk.org/could-russi...nited-nations/ ;
6. "‘in using the credentials process in this way, the General Assembly effectively sidestepped the article 5 requirement that both the major political organs of the UN must be involved in a suspension decision’." REF: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books...EE063FD8464CFD
7. Supporting analysis that the 1971 ICJ opinion was correct, And that the Assembly’s exclusion of South Africa was clearly ultra vires (acting or done beyond one's legal power or authority).. came to pass. REF: https://brill.com/view/title/36421?language=en.
8. Contending views exist as well such as THE CREDENTIALS APPROACH TO REPRESENTATION QUESTIONS IN THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FARROKH JHABVALA, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. REF: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.ed...&context=cwilj
9. The question in law became that the Charter was not being followed, but the practice of non-compliance with the charter was an accepted variation. Russia has never been voted on to take the place of the USSR, which is a specific requirement of the charter related to joining of a nation, and thus continuation where the continuing party is not the original member.
10. Common law permits the voiding of a coerced contract. "Contract coercion occurs when a contract agreement is entered into under conditions involving harm or threats of harm. State and federal laws require contracts to be entered into “knowingly” and “willingly” by all parties. Thus, if a party signs a contract due to coercion, the contract generally will not be considered legally enforceable. The rule regarding coercion applies both to the entire contract as well as individual terms in the contract. That is, the parties must willingly agree to the contract as a whole, as well as the various terms, definitions, and requirements laid out individually in the agreement".
11. Is a country that has made explicit threats of nuclear war practicing "coercion"? If so, then any contract that they are associated with is affected. If conditions of coercion are found, the effect on the contract is usually that the entire contract is rescinded or cancelled. Contract rescission has the effect of canceling the agreement in its entirety. This will release both parties from their obligation to perform any contract duties as contained in the agreement.

So -

• Is Russia a legitimate member of the UNSC under Article 23(1)?
  • The basis of their approaching the UN as the pseudo continuing member was the agreement of Alma-Ata, 21 Dec 1991. They have acted to repudiate that Declaration, Art.1 on 14 different matters and on multiple occasions.
• Is Russia attempting coercion to any member of the UN Charter? Under Article 5, such on one country is considered to affect all Charter members...
  • ​​​​​​​Russia continues to breach the Alma-Ata Declaration from which they gained the UNSC seat.
• Does coercion/Duress finally permit the removal of Russia from the Art.23(1) UNSC seat?
  • ​​​​​​​If Russia's seat is predicated on common law, as they were a state following a dissolution, not being the continuation state, then common-law contract effects of intimidation, duress, fraud in the inducement, etc may apply.
• While we are at it... What about the Republic of China?
  • ​​​​​​​ROC was removed from its seat through denial of it's credentials. PRC took the seat. PRC is acting in a manner that is inconsistent with Art.2 and Art.4. A caution would be interesting, or an Art.108 to be prepared to get adherence with their obligations.

​​​​​​​DISCUSSION

a UNSC Member, who happens to have contested status since 1992 has threatened nuclear war on a substantial number of UN countries.

• 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 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.


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.

There are a number of novel arguments there that Ukraine has not used previously, but simply, the USSR dissolved.

1. Russia was never a continuation which was required to be the case to assume a seat without a UNGA vote. No vote ever occurred. Remove them.
2. Russia assumed the seat on the back of the Alma-Ata Protocols of 21 Dec 1991. Art.1 of the protocols, at least 14 parts of that article have been breached by Russia which is arguably a repudiation of the contract by which they gained their seat on the UNSC. That is an immediate, evidentiary argument, there is no contest on that, and the ICJ can rule rapidly on that and remove Russia, from Art.23 UNSC membership, and then the UNSC can recommend Art.5 suspension or Art.6 expulsion. That is the fastest way to move, and it has never been argued. Ukraine moaned about the UNSC issues on other justifications, but they never went back to a repudiation of the contract that was entered by Russia that gave them the right, it is also arguably one of the greatest contractual frauds, and fraud in the inducement since Germany-USSR NAP of 1939.
3. If Russia argues they have their seat by common law, then the ICJ decision of 1971 voids that.
4. If the ICJ ruling which is binding, is set aside due to common law observance of Russia as a member in contravention of the continuation and tacit acceptance of their taking the seat, then under common law, Ukraine and all other signatories can argue duress, as the nuclear status of Russia was the reason that they were left unopposed.

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

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.”

[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.

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.

[Ripton]

Originally Posted by fdr

PRC is not a member under Article 23(1), the Republic of China is.

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

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.

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?