Is Russia’s Placement on the Security Council Legal?

When Russia replaced the Soviet Union as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 1991, it did not even attempt to follow the process outlined in the UN Charter. Now that Russia’s usurpation of the USSR’s seat has enabled it to wage a war of aggression, the dubious legal status of its position must be revisited. KYIV—“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” So begins the UN Charter. Yet Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is well into its fourth year, confirming just how far the UN has strayed from its foundational promise. The problem is not simply that the UN has failed to stop a major war. It is that the state waging the war exercises a veto within the very body that the Charter entrusts with preserving international peace and security. Last month, the Security Council met once again to discuss Ukraine, and once again, the world saw how Russia has turned the Soviet Union’s permanent seat, which it usurped in 1991, into a license for impunity. If ever the Council tries to respond to Russian aggression, the Kremlin blocks it from doing so. This perverse arrangement is usually described as an unfortunate but unavoidable flaw of the system. But is it? The UN has never examined how the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) or its successor, the Russian Federation, acquired membership in the organization and on the Security Council in the first place. Yet surely this matter warrants closer scrutiny. On the basis of which documents, exactly, did Russia inherit the Soviet Union’s veto-wielding position? The answer is remarkably thin. Article 23 of the Charter still lists the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” as a permanent member of the Security Council. The Soviet Union was a founding member of the UN in 1945, as were Ukraine (UkSSR) and Belarus (BSSR). The same cannot be said for the RSFSR or the Russian Federation. Continue Reading