Russia and the UN Security Council

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,387
Reaction score
4,381
Location
The Misty Mountains
What would it take to remove Russia from the United Nations Security Council? Up front, it seems Impossble, but I’ll ask, how can the UN even function if it has a rogue State on the Security Council who is undermining the proceedings to benefit itself in an unlawful manner?


An interesting article that argues Russia is not a legitimate member of the UN Security Council, that technically the position is not supposed to be transferred from one country (USSR) to another (Russia).

Summing up​

  • According to the Constitution of the USSR, the union republics, including the RSFSR, had the status of individual states with the right to withdraw from the USSR. In turn, the USSR was a separate state from the union republics;
  • The UN Charter does not allow the change or continuation of permanent membership in the UN Security Council from one country to another;
  • The Constitution of the USSR does not provide any procedures of the replacement of the Soviet Union by one of the USSR’s parts in international organizations and bodies, including the UN Security Council;
  • The highest bodies of state power and administration of the USSR did not take a decision to replace the Soviet Union with the RSFSR in international organizations and bodies, including the UN Security Council;
  • No international treaty made with the participation of the USSR provides for the replacement of the Soviet Union with the RSFSR in international organizations and bodies, including the UN Security Council

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


There is no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the Security Council written into the UN Charter. The word “permanent” was to mean just that. But there is a process to remove a country from the United Nations. That would require a vote of the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never been done. And given that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, the Council cannot recommend Russia’s removal without Russia’s agreement. This simply will not happen. So no, Russia cannot be kicked out.

But is Russia validly there at all? This is Ukraine’s question. The UN Charter says that the USSR, not Russia, is the permanent member. While no permanent member of the Security Council has ever been removed, two have changed – and it is worth analysing how and why, not just for the current crisis but for the next one surely coming over Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,523
Reaction score
9,283
Personally, I would not favour removing "Russia" from the Security Council; however, I do think that the arrangement re the use of the veto - and not just for the Russians - could (and should) be re-visited and could well be - and ought to be - subject to amendment.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,762
Reaction score
14,723
Personally, I would not favour removing "Russia" from the Security Council; however, I do think that the arrangement re the use of the veto - and not just for the Russians - could (and should) be re-visited and could well be - and ought to be - subject to amendment.
Yeah, like if you are the country starting a war, you should not get a vote on that specific issue.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,387
Reaction score
4,381
Location
The Misty Mountains
Personally, I would not favour removing "Russia" from the Security Council; however, I do think that the arrangement re the use of the veto - and not just for the Russians - could (and should) be re-visited and could well be - and ought to be - subject to amendment.
It is supposed to be an esteamed position requiring responsible powers. When one goes rogue, what do you get? They have shown that in their current state they have no business being in such a position in the UN, my opinion.

Regarding the veto, how about when your country is in a position of being held accountable for wrong doing, you vote becomes null? That’s kind of what you said.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,523
Reaction score
9,283
It is supposed to be an esteamed position requiring responsible powers. When one goes rogue, what do you get? They have shown that in their current state they have no business being in such a position in the UN, my opinion.

I beg to differ.
Regarding the veto, how about when your country is in a position of being held accountable for wrong doing, you vote becomes null? That’s kind of what you said.
No, that is not what I said.

To be more precise, I would like to see the veto - which I think has been abused - used considerably less, or, that its use be restricted to specific - and limited - circumstances.

However, I have given no thought whatsoever - your thread prompted my observations - as to what form such restrictions might take.

Besides, obtaining agreement on such a proposal would present considerable challenges.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,387
Reaction score
4,381
Location
The Misty Mountains
I beg to differ.

No, that is not what I said.

To be more precise, I would like to see the veto - which I think has been abused - used considerably less, or, that its use be restricted to specific - and limited - circumstances.

However, I have given no thought whatsoever - your thread prompted my observations - as to what form such restrictions might take.

Besides, obtaining agreement on such a proposal would present considerable challenges.
Thank you for entertaining my questions. Note I am not speaking about this from a position of authority and I’ve said it appears to me basically impossible to remove Russia as I understand it.
  • Why do you disagree with my characterization?
  • How do you view the role of the Security Council? As far as the name, what security are they/should they be providing?
  • What happens when you end up with a country who is acting as a worldwide destabilizer is a member of such a council and is in a position to veto any resolution directed at it regarding the unlawful actions it is taking?
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,387
Reaction score
4,381
Location
The Misty Mountains
Not least of which is most members would… wait for it… veto it! 🤣
That’s one of my points. I understand how the UN was created, but it seems the arrangement has an Achilles heal, when one of these members start acting in an blatant unlawful manner regarding world law.

It’s kind of like the local Neighborhood Watch having a member of the local mafia on the board of directors.
 
Last edited:

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
4,387
Reaction score
4,381
Location
The Misty Mountains
I am amazed that BP jettisoned a reported coinvestment in Russia totaling $20B+. However there are reports this is not necessarily a good thing. The reason being it is described as a gift to Russia, but the counter would be it depends on how long Russia is will remain a pariah, economically isolated, years, a decade? Of course this is based on the status quo and not allowing for any internal changes in Russia.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,523
Reaction score
9,283
@Huntn: Would you consider a thread title change so that it reads, "Russia & the UN Security Council", - which is what the thread seems to be about - rather than simply "Russia", which is very broad?
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
6,090
Reaction score
9,347
I am amazed that BP jettisoned a reported coinvestment in Russia totaling $20B+. However there are reports this is not necessarily a good thing. The reason being it is described as a gift to Russia, but the counter would be it depends on how long Russia is will remain a pariah, economically isolated, years, a decade? Of course this is based on the status quo and not allowing for any internal changes in Russia.

With centuries of asshole leadership under their belt I don't envision them coming to the good global citizen table in my lifetime. On top of that add the bulk of their economy being tied to a resource we're trying to get off of. So they have a major climate killing industry and nukes. That's what they are bringing to the table. Yay. If it weren't for the nukes they would probably have a lot less say.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,523
Reaction score
9,283
And, also on UN matters:

Today, between 100 and 140 diplomats walked out of an address delivered (online, as he was unable to be present, in person, due to sanctions banning Russian flights over European airspace) by Sergei Lavrov, (the Russian Foreign Minister), at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
 

Arkitect

Peripatetic
Vaccinated
Posts
579
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Bath, United Kingdom
Instagram
With centuries of asshole leadership under their belt I don't envision them coming to the good global citizen table in my lifetime. On top of that add the bulk of their economy being tied to a resource we're trying to get off of. So they have a major climate killing industry and nukes. That's what they are bringing to the table. Yay. If it weren't for the nukes they would probably have a lot less say.
That is exactly right.

Russians have no history of democracy. They don't even seem to grasp the concept of a democratic society…

Russia was founded as an absolute monarchy segued into a massive Eurasian empire… then by way of bloody revolution became a totalitarian Communist state and nowadays with Putin finds itself an imperialist presidency.

And then there is the "Us" and "Them" mentality. You could almost call it an inferiority complex vis a vis the "Democratic West".

So I would agree, without the nukes to shore them up, it would be a very different picture.

OTOH, Europe above all has been lazy and should have seen this coming a long time ago.
And for that I do blame the German politicians… Now all the hand-wringing. Merkel (who I have a lot of respect for in many areas) thought she had Putin by the hand. They could "manage" him.

Ha! How wrong they were.
 

Scepticalscribe

Site Master
Vaccinated
Posts
6,523
Reaction score
9,283
That is exactly right.

Russians have no history of democracy. They don't even seem to grasp the concept of a democratic society…

Russia was founded as an absolute monarchy segued into a massive Eurasian empire… then by way of bloody revolution became a totalitarian Communist state and nowadays with Putin finds itself an imperialist presidency.

.....
That is very true, yet also - and equally, - true, is the fact that Russian society (and culture) is (and has been, for at least the past two hundred years) also home to a deeply rooted reformist strain, which tends to be more 'liberal', more democratic, more open, more cosmopolitan, and profoundly repudiating (and rejecting) those autocratic, nationalist, Orthodox, Slavic, traditions and tendencies found in the more conservative strain of Russian culture.

This strain tends to be in the ascendency (sometimes led by leaders who express it, when they hold power,) for far shorter periods of time, and their exits are usually ugly and brought about by assassination, or sundry other means of removal from power, but they do exist, and, while Mikhail Gorbachev was only the most obvious, and recent, expression of this element of Russian political culture, others (Alexander II, for example, perhaps Kerensky, perhaps Khrushchev) did exist before him.
 

Arkitect

Peripatetic
Vaccinated
Posts
579
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Bath, United Kingdom
Instagram
That is very true, yet also - and equally, - true, is the fact that Russian society (and culture) is (and has been, for at least the past two hundred years) also home to a deeply rooted reformist strain, which tends to be more 'liberal', more democratic, more open, more cosmopolitan, and profoundly repudiating (and rejecting) those autocratic, nationalist, Orthodox, Slavic, traditions and tendencies found in the more conservative strain of Russian culture.

This strain tends to be in the ascendency (sometimes led by leaders who express it, when they hold power,) for far shorter periods of time, and their exits are usually ugly and brought about by assassination, or sundry other means of removal from power, but they do exist, and, while Mikhail Gorbachev was only the most obvious, and recent, expression of this element of Russian political culture, others (Alexander II, for example, perhaps Kerensky, perhaps Khrushchev) did exist before him.
Sure, there are always a few exceptions, but looking at the span of Russian history, overwhelmingly Russia has always fallen backwards into autocracy never forwards into anything remotely democratic.
I mean, let's not forget even Yeltsin bombed the White House.

Anyway! Fun fact.
The champagne Louis Roederer "Cristal", beloved tipple of "reforming" Tsar Alexander II (and Russian Oligarchs to this day) has a flat bottomed, crystal clear bottle — usually Champagne and wine bottles have a punt (or hollow) at the bottom and are green…

Alexander II specified this himself… a.) so no one could hide an explosive in the hollow and b.) cyrstal clear to see that it wasn't poisoned. (No, not an urban myth.)

Paranoid is as paranoid is.

Of course when he did die in an assassination attempt his successor clamped down on any loosening of the Romanov grip on power. And into this was born Nicholas II. With disastrous results.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
6,090
Reaction score
9,347
That is exactly right.



And then there is the "Us" and "Them" mentality. You could almost call it an inferiority complex vis a vis the "Democratic West".

This is key to authoritarianism when the leadership has zero solutions for economic and inequality issues (as if they ever do). “Um….errr….ah. Hey! That equally screwed person that you really don’t know seems to be doing slightly better than you. Are you going to take that?!?” and irritatingly a good percentage of the population eats that shit up. It's like a third of the planet has daddy issues.
 
Top Bottom