Timeline for What is the legal background for Russia's seat as a Permanent Member of UNSC?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2023 at 18:05 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @convert if anyone considered the newer question a duplicate of this one as you are suggesting, it would have been closed back in 2018 -- before it got upvoted and answered. Also, this question is a bit more elaborated, I guess. | |
| May 15, 2023 at 16:50 | comment | added | convert | @Fizz Since the other question has more then double the votes this one would be to mark as duplicate, this what I read somewhere on Meta. | |
| May 15, 2023 at 14:28 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice |
edited tags
|
|
| May 15, 2023 at 14:24 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @convert: we generally don't close older Qs as duplicates of newer ones, but the other way around. Also, this Q is much more specific, as it asks for a specific document. | |
| May 15, 2023 at 12:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 17, 2023 at 14:26 | |||||
| May 15, 2023 at 12:03 | comment | added | convert | Does this answer your question? How did Russia retain the UNSC veto power of the Soviet Union? | |
| Mar 20, 2023 at 23:27 | history | edited | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 20, 2022 at 17:03 | vote | accept | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| S Oct 20, 2022 at 17:03 | history | bounty ended | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| S Oct 20, 2022 at 17:03 | history | notice removed | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| Oct 15, 2022 at 0:11 | history | edited | phoog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Oct 14, 2022 at 17:32 | answer | added | Italian Philosopher | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 17:22 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Have the liberated states formally delegated Russia Did they need to? The 1971 transfer of Taiwan to China UN privileges, which includes veto rights, was 76 for, 35 nay, 17 abstentions. Not everyone needed to agree, it didn't unanimity. | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 12:09 | answer | added | CDJB♦ | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 14, 2022 at 10:58 | answer | added | convert | timeline score: -4 | |
| Oct 13, 2022 at 21:29 | comment | added | Radically Reasonable | All 15 republics were successor states. "Continuator" state is the proper term here. It's stronger than "successor." | |
| S Oct 13, 2022 at 20:08 | history | bounty started | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| S Oct 13, 2022 at 20:08 | history | notice added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | Current answers are outdated | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 25, 2020 at 13:13 | answer | added | user1567459 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 16:12 | comment | added | divibisan | Related: How did Russia retain the UNSC veto power of the Soviet Union? | |
| Mar 29, 2016 at 12:07 | vote | accept | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | ||
| Oct 13, 2022 at 20:08 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2016 at 19:51 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 3, 2016 at 17:28 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2016 at 19:39 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @nelruk, unfortunately, not. The Russian Empire, nor any other flavors of Muscovian Kingdom, has no relation to Permanent Membership in UNSC. | |
| Mar 1, 2016 at 19:32 | comment | added | nelruk | I think this is a possible duplicate of What would happen if Russia declared itself the successor of the Russian empire? | |
| Mar 1, 2016 at 18:44 | history | edited | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a minor typo
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 16:05 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/686579636214624256 | ||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 17:03 | comment | added | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | @SJuan76, I understand this point, and that's why my question arose. (1) I could not find any evidence confirming that "As long as there was an agreement between all of the states that…"; (2) "UN only had to acknowledge the change" — this is very correct, that's why I'm asking for a legal document confirming such acknowledgment. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 16:50 | comment | added | SJuan76 | I think the change should not be considered a "critical one" from the UN point of view. From a legal view, it meant no internal change for the UN. From a political POV, Russia inherited most of the territory, population and the military power from the SU, so the change there was minimal too. As long as there was an agreement between all of the states that could claim succession rights, the UN only had to acknowledge the change. In a similar way, if my father has a mortgaged property and he dies, the bank only can acknowledge who has inherited the rights (and duties), it can not agree/disagree. | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 14:13 | answer | added | erocoar | timeline score: 29 | |
| Jan 9, 2016 at 22:43 | history | asked | Be Brave Be Like Ukraine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |