social.outsourcedmath.com


It’s ironic that Russia holds the presidency of the Security Council, the UN’s body delegated to make peace, just as Russia is perceived by many to be the greatest threat to that peace. Ukraine’s ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya, has even suggested that Russia should be removed from the Security Council. But can this happen?

The Security Council was established by the 1945 UN Charter and comprises 15 members. Ten rotating non-permanent countries are elected by the UN General Assembly to do a two-year term on the Security Council. Five members – the USSR (now Russia), Republic of China (now People’s Republic of China), the US, UK and France – have the status of permanent members and so have a veto on any vote before the 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.

Because the two changes were China and Russia.
Ukraine invasion: should Russia lose its seat on the UN Security Council?
It absolutely should lose its seat!
I'm with @Clara Listensprechen [old account] - devil's in the details....and this should be deeply looked into.
Then you agree with all three of me, ha. :-}} Indeed it should, as it should have been looked into a long, long time ago.
Aw geeez, my Pluspora account isn't following Paul.
I just fixed that, ha.
@Clara Listensprechen [defunct account]
Yep, successfully I might add. :-}}
hmm .. kinda basic nonsense consideration about the UN, the security council and it's basic reason of existance.
**joe diaspora
I agree with Farhad. No veto power for any country.
Indeed. The UN needs to be a hybrid of House and Senate and then still make a distinction between well-resourced countries and those not so well endowed. Global treaties aren't the same thing as legislated global laws--it's about aliances, agreements to work together (or not). People remain averse to any kind of world government, and the UN is definitely not supposed to be any kind of world government.
**joe diaspora
It is not a non-sequitur. The subject is, at least in part, about removing Russia from the security council.
...topic of which y'all were off. I know.
**joe diaspora
No, Farhad made a less radical suggestion than removing Russia from their seat on the SC. He suggested removing the veto power of the superpowers, at least one of which always has a horse in the race in a security crisis, and a reason not to oppose war.
Perhaps he sides with Russia. I don’t know. If so, I disagree with that but I still agree with what he said here, as a better suggestion than kicking Russia out of the UN.
Perhaps Ukraine has a legitimate legal case over who is the rightful successor to the USSR. If so, they should take them to court at the Hague, or wherever such cases are decided.
I agree with getting rid of veto rights. Not just for Russia, but for all members.
Joseph Teller diaspora
Farhad has been making pro-Russia posts for a while.

That said, removing the one nation veto on the security council from blocking the consideration or voting on an issue brought before the council is also a reasonable rules modification. Blocking discussion or debate flies in the face of the purpose of the council.

The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the United Nations Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
As for now it achives to fullfill it's main purpose, being a place where "conversation" is still possible and available.

Trying to make it a place for decission taking and enforcement of these by the use of power will enevitably (at least for now) destroy the main purpose because it will make countries leave.
Farhad has been making pro-Russia posts for a while.
I haven't seen that. What I have seen is comments against any war, any kind of violence. And his frustration about some of it getting a lot of attention, and some of it hardly any. I understand that frustration, but I can also understand that some will see it as pro-Russian because it doesn't fit in the popular "Russia is the devil" mantra that is -understandibly- very popular at the moment.

This website uses cookies to recognize revisiting and logged in users. You accept the usage of these cookies by continue browsing this website.