Reclaiming the UN Charter: A Legal Path to Peace in Ukraine

The war between Russia and Ukraine is not only a humanitarian catastrophe—it is the symptom of a deeper constitutional flaw in the global order. At the heart of the conflict lies a misclassification made in 1991, when Russia assumed the Soviet Union’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) without legal procedure, treaty, or Charter amendment. That oversight has since allowed unchecked vetoes, obstructed collective action, and weakened the very foundation of international law.

As missiles strike cities and millions are displaced, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) remains paralyzed, shackled by the veto of a permanent member engaged in aggression. This paralysis is not incidental—it is structural. At its heart lies a legal anomaly left unresolved for over three decades: Russia’s unratified inheritance of the Soviet Union’s permanent seat on the Council.

The time has come to confront this anomaly—not with rhetoric, but with law. The UN Charter must be reclaimed, not rewritten. Only then can the Council act in defense of peace.

The Charter’s Unaltered Truth

The Charter remains clear. Article 23 of Chapter V declares: “The Republic of China, The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.”

That language has never been amended. The name “Russian Federation” does not appear. Yet since December 1991, Russia has occupied the USSR seat—without a General Assembly (UNGA) vote, without a Security Council recommendation, and without compliance with Article 4, which requires that “admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

This substitution was not a legal act. It was a letter. On 24 December 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar:

“The membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (Russian SFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name ‘Russian Federation’ should be used in the United Nations in place of the name ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.’”

No vote followed. No Charter amendment was proposed. The world simply acquiesced.

Continuity vs. Succession: The Legal Faultline

International law distinguishes between a continuing state and a successor state. A continuing state retains the full legal personality and entire territory of its predecessor. A successor state inherits only part. Russia, with 51 percent of the Soviet population and 76 percent of its territory, was clearly one successor among fifteen—not the sole heir of the USSR.

As Yehuda Zvi Blum, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, observed: “With the demise of the Soviet Union itself, its membership in the UN should have automatically lapsed and Russia should have been admitted to membership in the same way as the other newly independent republics (except for Belarus and Ukraine).”

Ukraine has echoed this claim. Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya argued at the UN that Russia never properly applied for membership under Article 4 and that its veto is a misuse of authority grounded in an unratified claim.

The Price of Silence

The absence of legal ratification has had devastating consequences. Russia inherited veto power without Charter amendment or UNGA approval. When it invaded Ukraine in 2022, it used that veto to block condemnation of its own aggression. “The silence of 1991 has become the paralysis of today,” Blum noted.

The aggressor became the judge. The UNSC, humanity’s ultimate guardian against war, was paralyzed by the very state committing it.

On 2 March 2022, the UNGA overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s invasion by a vote of 141–5–35. Yet the Council—the only body empowered to authorize binding measures—remained silent. As Ukraine’s delegate warned in 2025, Russia’s veto had become “the most vivid example of how detrimental the misuse of the veto could be.”

Restoration, Not Replacement

The Charter provides a lawful remedy: restoration of the USSR seat, not its permanent assignment to Russia. This could mean collective stewardship of the seat by all fifteen successor states through a Eurasian Regional Union (ERU), or a neutral placeholder until the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules on the succession question.

There is precedent. In 1971, UNGA Resolution 2758 recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole representative of China and expelled the Republic of China (ROC). The permanent seat shifted from Taipei to Beijing without amending the Charter. The precedent demonstrates that even a permanent seat can transfer through UNGA resolution alone.

Practice Cannot Override Principle

Russia’s defenders point to thirty years of uninterrupted practice: acceptance of credentials, inheritance of the Soviet arsenal, and assumption of treaty obligations. But practice cannot override principle. The Charter still lists the USSR. The admission process under Article 4 was never followed. The amendment procedure under Article 108 was never invoked.

As Ukraine argues, Russia’s claim rests on “a unilateral letter, not Charter law.” Institutional convenience in 1991 cannot be the foundation for legitimacy in 2025.

Toward a Charter That Serves Humanity

Reclaiming the USSR seat is not about isolating Russia. As former UN Under-Secretary-General Yasmine Al-Sharif emphasized: “It is about creating a framework where all former Soviet states—including Russia eventually—can cooperate rather than conflict. But that requires Russia to relinquish exclusive control of the seat and accept pooled sovereignty.”

This reform would not weaken the UN. It would strengthen it. A reconstituted Council—built around regional unions such as Eurasia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia—would democratize decision-making, reduce veto abuse, and restore the Council’s credibility.

Peace cannot rest on ceasefires alone. It requires legitimate institutions. The unresolved succession of 1991 is the UN’s hidden fracture line. Until addressed, wars like the one in Ukraine will find shelter behind an unratified veto.

The moment has come to confront the unfinished business of 1991. To let law restrain power. To let legitimacy replace silence. To let dignity become the inheritance of all peoples.

Peace is not a privilege—it is a principle. And it begins by resolving the constitutional question that has haunted the UN since the USSR flag was lowered for the last time.