When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with veto power was inherited by the Russian Federation.
This transition was based on the understanding that Russia would assume the responsibilities and obligations of the Soviet Union, including adherence to its international treaties, contracts, and commitments.
However, there have been numerous instances where Russia has failed to uphold these obligations, raising questions about its legitimacy as a permanent member of the UNSC.
This essay examines the basis of Russia’s inheritance of the Soviet Union’s seat, highlights examples of its failures to honour these obligations, and explores whether this could justify its removal from the Security Council.
The Basis of Russia’s Inheritance of the Soviet Seat
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 was a momentous event that reshaped the geopolitical landscape. Fifteen independent states emerged from the Soviet Union’s collapse, yet the Russian Federation quickly asserted itself as the successor state.
This claim was formalised through a letter from Russian President Boris Yeltsin to the UN Secretary-General on December 24th, 1991, which stated that the Russian Federation would assume the Soviet Union’s membership in the UN, including its permanent seat on the Security Council.
The international community largely accepted this arrangement without formal objection, primarily for pragmatic reasons, including Russia’s possession of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal and its significant geopolitical influence.
Crucially, Russia’s assumption of this role was predicated on its acceptance of the Soviet Union’s legal obligations. Article 4 of the UN Charter emphasises that membership is contingent upon the acceptance and fulfillment of the obligations contained in the Charter.
By stepping into the Soviet Union’s role, Russia implicitly agreed to uphold its predecessor’s treaties and commitments. This included maintaining the integrity of international contracts, respecting borders established through agreements, and adhering to arms control and disarmament treaties.
Examples of Russia’s Failures to Honour Obligations
Despite the conditions under which it inherited its UNSC seat, Russia has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations, both under the UN Charter and through specific treaties signed by the Soviet Union. Several high-profile examples illustrate these breaches:
1. Violation of the Budapest Memorandum
One of the most glaring examples is Russia’s violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.
“Vladimir Putin, when you fire missiles into Ukrainian hospitals, we know who you are”
Under this agreement, Russia, along with the United States and the United Kingdom, provided assurances to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine’s relinquishment of its nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.
However, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its ongoing support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine directly contravene this agreement.
These actions not only breach the Budapest Memorandum but also undermine the broader principles of sovereignty and non-aggression enshrined in the UN Charter.
2. Non-Compliance with Arms Control Agreements
Russia has also failed to honour several arms control agreements signed during the Soviet era. For example, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed in 1987 between the United States and the Soviet Union, was a cornerstone of arms control during the Cold War.
In recent years, however, Russia was accused of violating the treaty by developing and deploying prohibited missile systems. These violations led to the United States formally withdrawing from the treaty in 2019, citing Russia’s non-compliance as the primary reason.
3. Failure to Respect Post-Soviet Borders
The Soviet Union signed numerous treaties recognising the borders of its successor states. Russia’s actions in Georgia in 2008, where it supported separatist regions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as its interventions in Moldova’s Transnistria region, constitute violations of these agreements. These actions reflect a broader pattern of undermining the territorial integrity of former Soviet states, contrary to the commitments Russia inherited.
4. Undermining International Norms
Beyond specific treaty violations, Russia has consistently acted in ways that contravene the spirit of the UN Charter. Its frequent use of the veto power to shield itself and its allies from accountability, as seen in resolutions addressing the Syrian civil war, has drawn widespread criticism. These actions undermine the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council, which is tasked with maintaining international peace and security.
Grounds for Removal from the Security Council
The question of whether Russia can or should be removed from the UNSC is complex and unprecedented. The UN Charter does not explicitly provide a mechanism for removing a permanent member from the Security Council. However, Article 6 of the Charter allows for the expulsion of a member state that “has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter,” subject to the recommendation of the Security Council and a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly.
Russia’s persistent breaches of international law and its obligations under the UN Charter could arguably meet this criterion.
Its actions undermine the foundational principles of sovereignty, non-aggression, and peaceful resolution of disputes. Furthermore, Russia’s assumption of the Soviet Union’s seat was conditional on its acceptance of the Soviet Union’s responsibilities. By failing to honour these obligations, Russia has weakened its claim to this privileged position.
However, the practical challenges of removing Russia from the Security Council are immense. As a permanent member, Russia wields veto power, which it would almost certainly use to block any resolution recommending its expulsion.
Moreover, the geopolitical consequences of such a move would be significant, potentially destabilising the international system.
Addressing these issues is essential for the continued credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
READ ALSO: MEDVEDEV SUGGESTS TRUMP COULD SHARE KENNEDY’S FATE IF HE ATTEMPTS TO STOP WAR.
In a recent statement, Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, suggested that if former U.S. President Donald Trump were to win the 2024 election and seek to end the ongoing war, he could face a fate akin to that of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
