New Washington Post podcast tackles personal finance for "real people"

Russia's placement on the United Nations Security Council is a matter of significant legal scrutiny given its current involvement in the aggressive war against Ukraine. The UN Charter established the Security Council to maintain international peace and security, yet Russia's veto power within this body effectively enables it to block any meaningful response to its aggression.

The legal basis for Russia's permanent Security Council seat dates back to the Soviet Union's founding membership in 1945 alongside Ukraine and Belarus. However, Russia's successor state the Russian Federation did not formally establish its own membership on the Council through the legally required steps outlined in Article 23 of the Charter. No application, Security Council consideration, or General Assembly approval appears to have been completed to transfer this permanent seat.

The UN has not rigorously examined the precise legal mechanism Russia used to inherit the Soviet Union's veto power. The letter from former Russian President Boris Yeltsin claiming "continuation" of the Soviet membership lacks legal weight given that no Russian Federation existed at the time. Precedents set by China's and Yugoslavia's situations offer no clear resolution either - China's case involves two governments representing a single continuing state, while Yugoslavia's dissolution saw a smaller remnant declared as the successor - neither analogy applies to Russia's situation.

Given Russia's current actions, it is imperative to question the legitimacy of its permanent Security Council membership. Stripping Russia of this right would serve to uphold the UN's core mission, hold accountable those responsible for the atrocities committed in Ukraine, and ensure that the body tasked with maintaining international peace and security functions as intended.