A Masterclass in Sophistry: Debunking Larry D. Johnson's Claim that ''Estoppel and Laches'' Protect the Kremlin Impostor in the United Nations - Knowledge is Power
A Principal Legal Officer in the UN Office of the Legal Counsel at the time of the 1991 fraud on the UN, Johnson wasted no time coming to Putin's rescue when Ukraine exposed the fraud.
Principal Legal Officer in the UN Secretary-General’s office at the time of the 1991 fraud on the UN, Johnson wasted no time coming to Putin's rescue when Ukraine exposed the #RussiaUNFraud. With blatant lies on facts and law, hiding law his own office had published. And our governments have sucked it up, refusing to stop Putin destroying Ukraine - and our world order. Prigozhin would be proud.
I will tidy and streamline it when I get time. In the meantime, you can see exactly how supposed “western legal experts” are fooling the governments of the world into keeping Russia illegally in the UN, enabling, assisting, and protecting the corruption, wars and poverty Putin and his proteges are wreaking on the world, and destroying our UN-based world order of peace, safety, and human rights.
Thanks for reading Knowledge is power! This post is public so feel free to share it.
With thanks to ATP Geopolitics - the most comprehensive and reliable daily coverage and analysis of the Ukraine invasion and related US/Europe/Russian/disinformation geopolitics.
It’s long. There are a lot of lies. It also explains how the hijacking of the UN is the cause of our world corruption, wars, poverty, migration crises, human rights violations, and disinformation. And how it is extremely quickly and easily fixed. If you want to fully understand what is going on, continue.
At the time, both the Ukraine MFA and Professor Hurd were handicapped as the critical evidence was missing - how exactly Russia ended up being in the United Nations when it was clearly not a member. It was not the USSR. It had never applied for or been admitted to membership under the requirements set out in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. Further evidence subsequently came to light in late 2022, which had been hidden in the UN Secretary-General’s archives. Requests for documentation by the Ukraine’s UN Permanent Representative, Sergiy Kyslytsya, had been refused as at 8 February 2022. All records of what had happened were deliberately hidden from both the member states and the public, for 3 decades.
The evidence is set out in detail and analysed at Images - Russia and the UN | Knowledge Is Power
There was no documentation or records whatsoever for 3 decades, apart from buried and camouflaged notes in mandatory annual reports1, reiterated buried in a “Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council supplement 1989-1992”, published in 2007 . The Secretary-General had reported absolutely nothing. Because of that, no one knew what the legal or factual basis was for Russia participating in the UN, and therefore whether it was legitimate. Although the conclusion was clear that it was not.
Professor Hurd’s article, while advancing one reason for the correct conclusion, does not explore any remedial procedure and contains a possible misapprehension (relating to “new states”2):
As “a Principal Legal Officer in the UN Office of the Legal Counsel at the time”, Johnson indicates that he was privy to what happened. But he does not give any detail or evidence of any procedure that was followed. Johnson has failed to declare his interest - a potential massive culpability for being a party to fraud, duress and a 33 year violation of the UN Charter. Naturally it is in his interests to both distance himself from any responsibility for the events, and to attempt to claim the events were lawful.
Johnson’s article is frankly filled with assertions of fact which are not supported by any evidence, assertions of law which are directly contrary to established UN and general law rulings, and a wealth of omissions of established facts and law.
Here I examine the last part of his article, under the heading “Rabbit hole no. 3: Declare Russia is not a bona fide member of the Organization, there having been no decision admitting it as a member after the demise of the USSR“.
Oh how I would love to ask him some questions under oath in the witness stand about where he was, what he knew, whom he spoke to, at the time; and where are the evidence3 and legal authorities backing his statements.
Text reproduced for analysis and research purposes only.
(The early parts of the article cover general UN procedure and the fact that the General Assembly is basically powerless to do anything: the Security Council has the power. And Mr Johnson set about claiming that Russia could stop the Security Council from acting, and that there is no way to remove or stop Russia from doing so.)
The writer’s comments are separated by block quotes (like this paragraph).
Mr Johnson wrote this article when the UN’s documentation and records were still concealed. Therefore the world, with the exception of Mr Johnson and a few others, was unaware of the exact reasons and procedures for allowing Russia to use memberships which had expired. Since then the documentation and a an audio statement by the USSR permanent representative who was involved, have come to light and removed any doubt that Russia is illegally participating in the United Nations, and the UN is violating its own Charter by allowing it to over-ride it’s decision-making processes.
It has also revealed the easy, simple, fast remedy. All this is set out at
It seems Mr Johnson’s article is the foundation of the disinformation which is still universally repeated by UN administration, in particular the Secretary-General, and so called “western experts” and parotted by governments and administrations. Although it is a simple matter to find out that it is complete lies. All the evidence is on the public records of the United Nations, and various contemporaneous news reports.
Mr Johnson’s office authored and published summaries of the law on Succession of States to UN memberships, like this:
He thoughtfully had this article translated and simultaneously published in Ukrainian, no doubt for the convenience of Ukraine.
Rabbit hole no. 3: Declare Russia is not a bona fide member of the Organization, there having been no decision admitting it as a member after the demise of the USSR
This rabbit hole was introduced by the stirring and “Adlai Stevenson”-like
Derogatory, unprofessional comment
statement of the Ukrainian Permanent Representative in the Security Council on the evening of Feb. 23. And repeated by the Ukrainian representative yesterday in the first meeting of the General Assembly’s emergency special session. In the latter case, he said the “while the Russian Federation has done everything possible to legitimize its presence at the United Nations, its membership is not legitimate, as the General Assembly never voted on its admission to the Organization following the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991” (GA/12404).
As this argument
It is not an “argument”. It is a fact. The United Nations Charter sets out the only way for a country to be admitted as a member, in Article 4.
The Ukrainian Permanent Representative’s statement is strange only in that he has used the words “Russia’s membership” which does not exist. And he seems to want to legitimise the “membership”. Perhaps it is diplomatic speak. Other than that he is completely correct - Russia does not have a membership. The requirements for basic membership of the UN were never fulfilled: (click on documents to enlarge them)
And Russia is not listed in the named permanent members of the Security Council - the ones with a “veto”. Because these members are “hard-wired” in the Charter itself, an amendment to the Charter would be required for Russia to become a permanent member:
has gained some traction by commentators and even some academics, it is worth spelling out why the argument does not hold water. It runs straight into what lawyers call a “laches” or “estoppel” problem or what lay people might call a “Speak now or forever hold your peace” problem.
Laches and estoppel are not applicable here, where Russia has effectively committed a fraud on the United Nations members: using deception to obtain a benefit it is not entitled to.
To claim an estoppel Russia would have to prove the
Estoppel is where a victim is induced to do something by a promise or representation or silence amounting to a promise, by another person. It is not available where the “victim” is in fact defrauding the other person, then trying to get an advantage from its own trickery.
1. There was no promise by the members. They relied on Russia’s trickery.
2. Russia was not induced to act in any way by a promise from the membership. It was Russia that dictated the action to the members. They relied on Russia’s lies, not the other way round.
3. Estoppel and laches require loss to be proved. Russia did not suffer loss. It tried to gain an advantage it was not entitled to.
4. There was no representation of conceealment by members. They were the victims. They did not know.
As for “laches”, a claim of delay, the case of China in 1971 has already established that delay makes no difference where a violation of the Charter is being corrected. In that case the correction was after over 22 years. This was not mentioned by Mr Johnson.
The issue, for the uninitiated, is how can Russia be a member of the United Nations after the former USSR dissolved in December 1991 and other bits and pieces
bits and pieces??? 11 former member Republics which left the USSR, including Russia.
of the former Soviet Union had to apply and be admitted to membership (though not Ukraine). Where are the resolutions of the UN admitting Russia to membership? How was it allowed to “sneak” into the Organization without following proper admission procedures or even a resolution deciding it could continue the seat of the former USSR?
Note that of course the same might be said of Ukraine.
No, the same cannot be said of Ukraine. This is a red herring “whatbout”, attempting to make it look like Ukraine was doing the same as Russia.
Ukraine was a state recognised by its membership of the UN. It was a founding member which signed in its own right at the same time as the USSR did. Its membership did not belong to the USSR. Russia remained a state after it left the USSR, and it was not a member of the UN.
The law on UN memberships specifically states that changes of government, constitution etc do not stop a member being a member, Explained below.)
The fact that Ukraine left the USSR, did not make it “extinct” so that its UN membership expired. Leaving the USSR involved a change to Ukraine’s constitution, specifically stated in the law as declared in 1947 as NOT a cause for membership to expire.
Changing a county’s name does not alter a country’s UN membership status.
Similarly, Russia leaving the USSR on 8 or 12 December 1991 made no change to Russia’s membership status in the UN. Russia remained a non member, while the USSR continued its own membership completely separate from Russia.
There are no resolutions or decisions admitting the newly independent Ukraine in 1991 when “Ukraine” continued the membership of the former “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” a founding member of the Organization in 1945 for reasons not addressed here.
Ukraine remained the same state. Just like Russia did. Change of constitution is NOT a cessation of membership- 1947 6th committee ruling.
In a nutshell, in 1991 there was no “sneaking” around.
There could not have been more “sneaking around”. That phrase is the perfect description of what happened. On 24 December, Christmas Eve, a sneaky transaction was passed off as a “change of name”, when a traitor USSR representative handed some letter from a non member to the Secretary-General, who hid the letter from the UN members for 32 years, changed the USSR’s nameplate and flag without it’s consent, and allowed a representative of a non-member to illegally participate.
The Russians made a claim;
No, the “Russians” made no claim at all. It eventuated, after 32 years of the members trusting that the Secretary-General had acted properly, that there was not a single claim of any right, let alone any reason given why Russia could continue a membership which had ceased to exist, which had belonged to a completely different country. Yeltsin’s letter 24 December 1991 simply stated Russia was “continuing” the membership of another country, which if it still existed* didn’t even consent, and when it ceased to exist, its memberships “thereby ceased to exist”. There was NO legal concept of “continuing”, it was invented out of nothing. There were no legal grounds advanced for a “claim”.
It appears the “claim” was made up much later.
it was distributed to the entire membership
This is a bare faced lie. Yeltsin’s and Vorontsov’s letters were never circulated to the members.
Belarus’ letter, dated the same date, advising it had left the USSR, was circulated, as is normal; even though it made no difference to any membership. The letter attaching notice of the extinction of the USSR was circulated a few days later - but not a letter proposing that its defunct memberships were to be “taken over” by another country?
Compare the Yeltsin letter above, to the Belarus letter the same day (the normal circulating and indexing procedures)
And to the notice of the extinction of the USSR 3 days later (meaning the end of its membership rights), circulated properly on 30 December 1991:
And to Serbia’s claim (with some legitimacy, unlike Russia) to “continue” the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a few months later:
There is no record that any “notice” of the Yeltsin letter whatsoever was “distributed to the entire membership”.
And Mr Johnson with his extensive experience, and his position at the time, knows that very well.
There is no evidence of the Yeltsin letter being notified to anyone except the ACC, a committee in the UN Secretariat under the control of the Secretary-General. That was not notification of members, it was actioning it without notification. In his covering telegraph The Secretar-General lies that he “brought it to the attention of the President of the Security Council” (he couldn’t because the President was the person who handed it to him; and of the General Assembly (no documentation), and “steps are being taken to circulate them to the members”. There is no record of any step taken to do so.
2. According to Vorontsov. the Secretary-General accepted his credentials to represent Russia the same day. 24 December 1991. See the New York Times clipping below.
3. No “claim” was “distributed to the entire membership”. No members had any opportunity to “speak up, question, object, comment on, make proposals or more”. It was presented as a fait accompli and passed off as a name change (Vorontsov).
4. Not only were no members given any opportunity timewise, they were deprived of any opportunity to know what to speak on, due to what was done being hidden by successive UN Secretary-Generals, for 31 years right up until 2022.
It is true that there is no “positive” decision taken on the issue, but there was no “push back” or challenge either.
There could not be any challenge because no one knew what had happened or even that something had happened. For all they knew, USSR might have not been abolished but changed its name instead. No doubt they were waiting for some notification as would be expected.
The ability to “push back” was sidestepped by telling no one what happened, violating the required procedures, and presenting countries with a fait accompli hardly even mentioned 18 months later, in a “provisional” report – by which time Russia had gained power to stop anyone objecting. But still no one knew the real facts until 2022.
With no objection,
there was nothing to object to.
the claim stood.
Ah no, someone who breaks the law does not get a “claim” because no one speaks out, even if they know about it but especially when it has been concealed. (Doris)
Nothing “stood”. If someone commits fraud and no one knows, when they are found out, they are removed, and PROSECUTED.
Very similar to the fake qualifications scandals - people with fake qualifications being employed in high positions, when they’re found out they are sacked, inquiries into why they were employed, and heads roll over them being employed without checking their credentials.
But it was a major subject of discussion behind closed doors and in consultations. No Government thought it advisable to openly challenge or question the claim or even discuss it publicly.
What was? Obviously the collapse of the Soviet Union was. Where’s the record of anything else being discussed. He is speaking what other people thought. Given his record of veracity to date it is more likely they didn’t know what to do because they couldn’t find out, and so trusted the Secretary-General to comply with the law and advise them when there was something to advise.
One would imagine Mr Johnson, as a principal legal officer, would have been asked what was happening. What did he tell people?
There was nothing to discuss. No doubt governments were waiting for the normal procedure- circulation of any “claim”, and agenda in the SC, then the General Assembly.
You can’t object to something which hasn’t happened. So far as members were aware, nothing might happen.
The USSR representatives were there. No one was told the legalities of what had happened. It was hidden. Had the USSR changed its name, or merged legally with Russia? Was it a temporary arrangement for the winding up of the USSR’s memberships? They were not told.
The members of the UN rely on the Secretary-General to inform them what is happening, circulate any correspondence and to ensure the rules are applied. They probably also trusted the P4 to object if anything was wrong. They weren’t told another country had usurped the USSR’s expired veto. They had reason to trust the Secretary-General the UN Charter itself forbids him accept instructions from states, or to do anything which looked like it. It further required members to respect the Secretary-General. To question the S-G’s integrity could have been seen as a breach of the Charter and there is a reasonable likelihood that this threat was made.
What’s more, Ukraine at the time supported the Russian’s holding the UN Security Council seat.
Ukraine signed a document saying exactly that - they “supported” Russia being granted membership-by the proper procedure. Not by fraud.
That has about as much relevance as 11 of 15 siblings supporting one of them to exercise their dead mother’s vote in the government elections.
Notably lacking was any support from the USSR.
I was a Principal Legal Officer in the Office of the Legal Counsel at that time.
In 1991, it was the Russia of Boris Yeltsin not Vladmir Putin
Boris Yeltsin was an unknown quantity with a well known alcohol problem, leading a bankrupt, desperately mis-managed corrupt unstable violent country that had just deposed its ruler in a coup. With an unbroken history of extreme human rights abuses, economic malmanagement and genocides and invasions. Not a country anyone in their right mind would vote to control the UN.
The main factor that influenced how the issue was handled in the UN was the basic policy decision of the other P4 (China,
There is no record China connived. Contemporaneous news reports indicate this is untrue. In fact China spoke out strongly against the veto in 1992.
France, the United Kingdom and the United States), including first and foremost the US government,
Here we get to the crux of what happened. These three countries apparently connived in the Fraud and violation of the Charter, for their own interests. They had no power or right to make such decisions. It appears they connived to deprive the members of the proper procedure. There is only one reason for doing so: that it wouldn’t have succeeded. China would have vetoed it. And few if any members would support a veto being given to a bankrupt country in turmoil with nukes.
which was that it was in everyone’s interest that the USSR be dissolved peacefully and orderly,
Breaking the law and giving an illegal “veto” to Russia a country with a history of abusing it could be expected to have the opposite effect. And of course as soon as it had successfully violated the treaties it had signed over the USSR’s weapons, it invaded Chechnya.
which could be accomplished if the other republics agreed among themselves on various matters including the former USSR seat and the veto.
It’s not up to 11 USSR ex members to decide who is a member of the UN. Interesting he doesn’t try “inherited” here, though.
The republics of the former USSR, including Ukraine, agreed to Russia maintaining the seat of the USSR including in the Security Council.
Ah, no, nearly 1/3 didn’t agree at all.
If they agreed, who would object?
WHAT? If 11 recently emerged states agreed, who would disagree??
On what grounds would anyone have objected to Russia continuing the seat of the USSR in 1991?
What sort of legal argument is this?
Covered above: bankrupt, dangerously unstable, alcoholic ruler, riddled with corruption, unbroken history of abusing the veto, human rights abuses, aggression, exploitation of it’s own people and violations of the Charter
THERE IS 1 REASON RESOLUTIONS AREN'T PASSED. obviously the requisite majority did not support it. Otherwise it would have been PASSED.
Maybe to get rid of a veto? If so, it was up to a Member to speak up and make the case.
No, the veto was extinguished by operation of law when the USSR ceased to exist.
It was the responsibility of the Secretary to comply with the law, to enforce it.
Members were notified that Russia claimed it was not a “successor State” but a “continuing State” with the support of the former republics of the USSR, and there was no opposition
He’s just repeating the same lies. There was no “notification” and no opportunity to express opposition, members would be waiting for a meeting in accordance with the Charter.
However he is now introducing the chicanery that was used. There is no legal concept of a “Continuing state”. This is a complete fabrication. A “continuing state” would be a state that continues to exist. For example, the UK, if Scotland seceded, would continue with altered borders and constitution, as India did when Pakistan seceded, so might be called “continuing”, as a semantic convenience.
Ukraine and Belarus might be colloquially called “continuing” states in that their own memberships continued.
But there was no concept of another state “continuing” the USSR. ThUSSR was dissolved and it’s memberships thereby extinguished. Multiple times. It’s extinction was recognised when the declarations (above) were circulated to UN members and accepted.
On Christmas Eve 1991 the Soviet Permanent Representative Yuli Vorontsov came to the UN Secretariat with a box in his hand with a new flag of something called the “Russian Federation” and a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Boris Yeltsin, “President Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” (RSFSR).
How did Johnson know about a box with a flag in it?
Awfully presumptuous when you haven’t been approved under Article 4.
The flag was replaced on 28 December, while everyone was still away
It said “ 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 (RSFSR), with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, by the Russian Federation.” Note it says “continued” not succession.
Johnson is conceding there is no “succession” possible in UN memberships.
? Johnson just said Russia wasn’t claiming succession?
he was claiming that parts of the territory of his country
Small problem - the USSR wasn’t “his” Country. It wasn’t “Russia”’s country. (Fully canvassed in Images)
And it was extinguished.
had separated, leaving behind the rump
Small problem - Russia - Yeltsin’s country - had “separated” - on 8-12 December, leaving behind the “rump” that continued as the USSR after Russia left.
Nowhere is is cleaerer that they were 2 separate states than when Russia left: there were then 2 separate states: the USSR, continuing, with 8 remaining members and it’s UN memberships. and Russia, anon-member state.
This is just a total lie about what happened - the truth is recorded plain as day in a nice clear document trail.
which continued the international legal personality of the former larger State,
The USSR “continued the international legal personality of the former larger State“, with 8 remaining members for 2 weeks, until it was extinguished.
The USSR’s name was changed without its consent, if it was still in existence (taking the date of circulation/international acceptance of 30 December- above letter) or after it had ceased to exist (taking the date of the Alma Ata Protocols - or the Belavezha Accord of 8 December, which the “extinction” was backdated to!!!)
This is absolutely extraordinary coming from a Law lecturer!
This is not a mistake of some undergraduate.
This is a person who worked in the office that published the law on the issue.
Same country, just smaller, different borders and a new name and flag. The Russian Federation was the “continuing State”
NO, Russia had LEFT.
whereas all the bits that spun off
Russia was a “bit that spun off” - the 4th out of 15!!!
This guy is lying like a flat fish. Putin’s teacher!
were “successor States”
I have no idea what he is talking about “successors”. 11 of the 12 last ex member states jointly agreed in the Alma Ata and Belavezha treaties to carry out the USSR’s international obligations, and before that again on 4 December in the the Moscow treaty dividing the USSR’s debts and liabilities pro rata between them. They agreed on joint control of weapons - violated by Yeltsin who manipulated Bush and Clinton to help him violate the treaties.
—except for, ironically, Ukraine and Belarus which had been deemed as founding members of the Organization in 1945 for reasons not dealt with here.
No, they WERE founding members of the UN. Their signatures are on the treaty. They clearly had capacity to sign.
.
The letter also asked the Secretariat to change the name of the country from “the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” to “Russian Federation” wherever it appeared.
Oh, he said above it just “happened” to change.
For our purposes, the key phrase is “with the support” of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
No, the key phrase is “as a matter of legal and geopolitical reality, ceased to exist”
“With the support” is completely meaningless in law.
Who were they? Eleven former ex-Soviet Republics, excluding the Baltics but including Ukraine, signed various agreements at Alma Ata on Dec. 21 1991, including one which specified:
“The States of the Commonwealth support Russia’s continuance of the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including permanent membership of the Security Council, and other international organizations.”
They also expressed satisfaction that Belarus and Ukraine would continue to participate in the UN as sovereign independent States. So the UN in fact had 3 continuing members: Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
“Support” and “satisfaction” - neither of which they had any power over. They might as well have supported or been satisfied with the weather in America. The only meaning of this was that They might get angry looks if they voted against Russia. But that issue has never arisen.
Most notable - USSR’s “support resoundingly absent.
It is not for any Secretary-General to decide what is a State and what isn’t,
What is he talking about? State? What has that got to do with anything?
Oh… maybe he means deciding Russia is another, different state? - the extinct USSR, so it can use extinct memberships…. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe he means what is a member? And he is correct. The S-G can’t decide an non-member who has never been admitted is a “member”.
Yet that’s precisely what he did - and hid it.
It is not for the Secretary-General to decide anything in relation to memberships.
He refers it to the members. Unless they admit a state as a member in accordance with the Charter. it is the Secretary’s duty to remove trespassers.
It is a matter of law, not political convenience, what is a state and what is a member.
Yet the S-G decided that Russia would “be” a member when it wasn’t,
what continues a State and what does not.
Ah - no Palestine can rock up and sit and vote on the security council, and the S-G can do nothing about it?
What utter hogwash.
However this is again sounding uncannily similar to some “telephone” advice Vorontsov said he got “from the ICJ” - The most bizarre statement claimed to be legal advice I have come across in my extensive experience in the profession:
That is for the members of the club itself
It’s not a “club” - much though Russia wants it portrayed as such. It is the world’s most powerful military alliance with rules, procedures and clearly defined duties.
And it is not for the members. They act within the framework of the law.
Johnson is seriously trying the “there is no truth” argument, in a body of contract ruled by law.
– UN Member States. Secretary-General Pérez de Cuéllar, who was ending his term in a few days, sent a note verbale to all Members and other UN organizations circulating the Yeltsin letter.
That’s funny, because the UN Official Document System has a record of all notes verbales. And there is nothing about Russia taking over the USSR’s memberships.
Here are some notes verbales - how could the system have missed one about Russia and the USSR?
?
And he waited for any formal reaction.
This is just fiction. Vorontsov says credentials were issued the same day
The flag was changed on 28 December, still during the summer break.
The letter was never published.
No one was told.
There was none. Without any objections, questions, requests that anything be done such as convening a body or inscribing an item on an agenda,
The secretary-general is responsible for placing items on agendas. He didn’t.
or the like, the Secretary-General would follow the request and change the nameplate from USSR to Russian Federation, change the alphabetical listing of members and replace the old flag with the new, including in any bodies that the USSR had been a member of such as the Security Council. Any member can change its name and flag anytime it wants.
No member can change the name or flag of another member. Let alone of a membership which doesn’t exist.
As mentioned, I was a Principal Legal Officer in the Office of the Legal Counsel at that time and do not have any recollection of any legal opinion offered by that Office opining on the validity of the Russian claim,
I’m sure Mr Johnson recalls every detail. Including non-existent notes verbales and circulated letters.
What is astounding is how many people he seems to have fooled.
It is inconceivable that the legal department would be unaware of the fraud, and not be asked for an opinion. But maybe they were.
nor I suspect would there have been one along those lines. Advice was probably sought
“probably sought” by whom? From whom?
on what the implications would be of such a claim. As any legal opinion, it would have provided, confidentially, policy makers the view of Legal Office
What “policy makers”? Why would “the view of Legal Office” of the UN Secretariat on the momentous issue of the control of the UN itself, be “confidential”? How could the Secretary-General not have sought such an opinion?
on the applicable international law on succession of States to membership, reviewed relevant past practice and decisions of the organization (such as India/Pakistan, Pakistan/Bangladesh and others). I suspect it would have concluded that it was a matter for the membership to react to the Russian claim as they deemed fit.
This is unbelievable.
This former Assistant-Secretary-General of the United Nations for Legal Affairs is not only purporting to pronounce on what the Legal Office’s view “would have been”, but is actually saying that the Legal Office “would have” advised in a legal opinion that the “membership” could ignore the United Nations’ own Charter, and established legal precedent?
It does, however, uncannily echo the equally bizarre statement by Vorontsov, the USSR/Russian representative/President of the Security Council involved:
“I had to talk to the secretary general here, too, and with the legal department, … the International Court of Justice responded, by the way, in my presence in a phone call, and said "whatever you decide at the UN, that's how it's going to be". So that's why we closed that side.“
[Legal chicanery - Johnston’s mis-application, and selective omission of the applicable law]
The most relevant and definitive case involved Pakistan separating from “colonial” India in 1947. In an opinion adopted by the UN member States in its Legal Committee—with no Secretariat involvement—the Legal Committee concluded that as a general rule it was in conformity with legal principles to presume that a Member does not cease to be a Member simply because its constitution or its frontiers have changed. “The extinction of the State as a legal personality recognized in the international order must be shown before its rights and obligations can be considered thereby to have ceased to exist” (A/C.1/212, Oct. 11, 1947).
Correct. And you can’t get clearer than this “extinction of the [USSR] as a legal personality recognized in the international order”, formally accepted and notified to the membership.: Not one, but two separate declarations by all of the remaining members of the USSR that “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer exists”.
So the exact, direct and literal consequence of the plain words of the law as declared in the declaration, “[The USSR’s rights and obligations … thereby … have ceased to exist“.
The word “thereby” is important. It means at the time (not later), and as a consequence of those facts alone - nothing further is required for the membership to cease to exist, it is automatic.
That “general rule” adopted by member governments had never been challenged and had presumably guided later continuity/succession cases; it was more than a mere precedent.
This statement is absolutely correct, except as Jonson would well know if he is familiar with the law on the subject, it did not “presumably guide” but conclusively determined all subsequent cases.
Secondly, it was applied in 1992, while Russia was illegally participating, to the case of Sebia and Montenegro (below).
But, critically, the part of the declaration he quoted was only half of the “general rule” adopted by member governments [which] had never been challenged”.
Johnson has then conveniently ignored and omitted the second paragraph of the declaration, applicable to Russia: that the emerging states cannot claim membership and must apply. for membership. Here is the 6th Committee declaration of the law in full, with the omitted part, paragraph 2,
"1. That, as a general rule, it is in conformity with legal principles to presume that a State which is a Member of the Organization of the United Nations does not cease to be a Member simply because its Constitution or its frontier have been subjected to changes, and that the extinction of the State as a legal personality recognized in the international order must be shown before its rights and obligations can be considered thereby to have ceased to exist.
"2. That when a new State is created, whatever may be the territory and the populations which it comprises and whether or not they formed part of a State Member of the United Nations, it cannot under the system of the Charter claim the status of a Member of the United Nations unless it has been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.
This is not conditional. The word is “cannot”.
“[Russia, as a “new” state emerging from the division of a member state] cannot … claim the status of a Member of the United Nations unless it has been formally admitted as such in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.[ The “provisions of the Charter” are of course Article 4 requirements for membership, and, to “claim the status” of permanent membership, amendment of Article 23 to specify Russia.
In other words, he has left out the law which didn’t suit his argument.
[The circumstances]
Rumors were circulating at the time that some members were considering the following:
Convening a special meeting of the General Assembly:
It is the Secretary- general’s job to place items on the agenda.
For example: refusing credentials to Afghanistan, Myanmar Libya 2022
The matter was too important to leave to the Russians alone or even the P5 as a group, it was argued; it deserved a broader discussion in the General Assembly plenary among the entire membership as it affected a major piece of the structure of the Organization – permanent membership in the Security Council and the veto. And it was of course an international law question of major importance. The P5 were apparently not amused and this idea was vigorously opposed behind the scenes.
Bullying and intimidation apparent. This does not make illegality legal.
Which of the “P5” (permanent members)?
It’s difficult to see France or UK partaking in this conduct. It is inconceivable that China would have. That leaves 2 “P5”.
Or one? It is absolutely par for the course for Russia (like most criminals) to resort to bullying and threats to get what it wanted and evade the law.
While it was perfectly possible to do so, no Member State nor the-then President of the General Assembly made any formal proposal to have the matter discussed in the General Assembly .
Johnson doesn’t specify whether any such “proposal” was made and what form a “formal proposal” might take, and, tellingly, given that the Secretary-General was hiding what had happened and kept all mention of it off agendas, what the fate of such a “proposal” might be.
In fact it appears to be extremely difficult for one country to get anything onto the agenda of the General Assembly without the Secretary-General’s co-operation. Just look what has happened to Ukraine’s efforts to do so in 2022. Ignored and derided by “experts” like Johnson himself, right in this same article saying members “could have made a proposal to”.
In the 1990s, there was no “matter” to be discussed, so far as members were aware. The required UN procedures should have put any proposed actions on the agendas. But the Secretary-General failed to do so.
The Security Council failed to make it’s mandatory annual report to the Members at all, for 18 months after the event. Even after 18 months the report was released as “advance version”,
and contained 1 paragraph under a heading heading “Note”, not mentioned in the contents, chapters, or computer “subjects” of the document, appeared at page 313 of 355 - although Serbia’s claim to “continue” Yugoslavia received it’s own chapter 74, listed in the contents and the computer document subject index. (One can only speculate that the obvious reason for the “advance version” qualification was in case the concealed Russia-USSR fraud was questioned.
The “final” report for 1991-2 was dated 1995, recorded as released 1994, and actually published in 1997.
Requesting an advisory opinion of the ICJ: The matter raised a classical question of public international law on which an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice should be sought by the General Assembly. This did not last long either (maybe 2 seconds) when the practical question arose what do you do with the decision-making process in the Security Council during the time waiting for an ICJ opinion?
This is a ridiculous. argument
How is the Security Council supposed to function not knowing if one of its members – and a purported permanent member at that – can vote or not?
Members said nothing at the first meetings at which “the change” was reflected.
If members were bullied and intimidated out of protesting an illegal act that does not make it legal.
Although no objections or questions about the claim came in writing, the first time UN bodies met after “the name change” would offer an opportunity to raise the matter in a meeting. Any delegate could raise a point of order from the floor asking “What is that sign ‘Russian Federation’ and who is sitting behind it?” — and thus open up the issue for debate and discussion. The first meetings scheduled after the “change” were not in the General Assembly but rather in the Council. On Dec. 31,
after the flag had changed on 28 December
the Security Council met for the first time after the “change.” But it was the last day of the month which had heretofore been presided over that month by Ambassador Vorontsov as the USSR representative. On the 31st, however, he presided behind the “Russian Federation” nameplate. The meeting lasted 5 minutes at which a resolution on Western Sahara was adopted unanimously.
Why wasn’t the Russian issue on the agenda - and why was it hidden in a late-released security Council report not published till 18 months later, and then called “interim” - the final report released 1997 for the 1991-1992 year.
The President gave a statement at the end thanking the retiring members of the Council. Not one word came from him or any member of the Council about “the change.”
Maybe they were waiting for it to be on the agenda. That’s the Secretary-General’s job.
Pretty obviously intimidation was afoot. if there was support why wasn’t a resolution passed recommending membership.
The members of the Council who could have mentioned it were Austria, Belgium, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, France, India, Romania, the United Kingdom, the United States, Yemen, Zaire and Zimbabwe. They all knew and could see there was a change but no words were spoken on the matter. There must have been a clear understanding among members behind the scenes that the Soviet representative would “see out” his presidency for the month as the Russian representative,
One comment - if they all agreed, they would have passed a recommendation and referred the matter to a general assembly resolution.
There are possible explanations, none of them are consent.
If there had been consent, it would have been placed on the agenda.
The secretary had no power under the Charter or the rules to accept credentials from a non-member to have a representative at meetings, let alone vote.
The pressure must have been extreme for no country to speak about violation of the charter. Although they would all have been waiting for advice.
.
regardless of “skipping” the alphabetical rotation rule for that one day (S/PV.3025).
A newly constituted Security Council met on Jan. 6, 1992 under the UK Presidency but with 5 new members: Cape Verde, Hungary, Japan, Morocco, and Venezuela. None of them raised the question of “the change” (S/PV.3026).
How can they raise anything if
(a) it is not on the agenda and
(b) they are not aware of anything to raise?
Finally, the first time the general membership had an opportunity to raise the question in a plenary meeting of the General Assembly was on Feb. 4, 1992 when the meeting was presided over, ironically, by the Permanent Representative of Ukraine, acting as Vice-President. No mention was made of “the change” by him or anyone else.
Countries can’t just “raise” items. Look what happened when Ukraine did so. Nothing. It was not put on the agenda by the Secretary-General.
None of this makes any difference to the violation of the UN Charter nor to the ability to remedy it.
Johnson conveniently makes no mention of Resolution 2758 in 1971 which expelled the Representatives of the Republic of China, after “accepting” them for over 22 years. Which fits this situation perfectly. Instead lying about the facts, ignoring the law, ignoring the idenical case of Serbia and Chin
a
In conclusion, it is not worth diverting attention from the main goal of how the United Nations should react to this aggression by returning to the past.
Great legal argument. Not.
No one, including Ukraine, objected then (indeed, Ukraine affirmatively supported it in a signed agreement) — and it is 30 years too late to raise it now.
Johnson is clearly very keen to keep Putin in the UN.
I wonder why.
The present moment of crisis demands the most effective use of diplomatic resources. The legally available options I discussed at the start are among them.
– – – – – –
* For proposals before the General Assembly that refer to the Uniting for Peace resolution, aggression or breaches of the peace, most likely the required majority for adoption will be 2/3rds of those present and voting (those voting “yes“ and “no”—abstentions not counted). This is because under Article 18(2) of the Charter, decisions on “important questions” are made by that majority, “recommendations with respect to the maintenance of peace and security” being specified as one such question.
Summary and conclusion (TLDR)
Johnson literally lies about 4 documented facts, sitting in plain sight on the UN (and Russia’s own) official records.
Johnson lies about the most critical fact: He tries to say the other states left Russia, so that Russia remained in the USSR alone, the “rump”, that the USSR’s memberships “became” Russia’s, and Russia “continued” them.
Documented fact: Russia was not the “rump” of the USSR. Russia was a seceding part. It was one of the first to secede, along with Ukraine and Belarus, after the 3 Baltic states. It was not the USSR. (Belavezha Accord, 8 December 1991)
The entire basis of Johnson’s argument fails on that fact alone.
Johnson bypasses the inconvenient fact that when Russia seceded from the USSR, they became 2 separate states. The USSR, literally the continuing state (comprising 8 Republics), member of the UN, and Russia, a “new” non-member.
Johnson repeats, over and over, that the members of the United Nations were “notified” and “had the opportunity to object”.
Documented fact: The UN’s comprehensive records, including every note verbale on the most minor point, show they weren’t. The UN’s own explanatory note, first archived in archive.org on 1 November 2022 states “the material (i.e. a letter from Russia’s President Yeltsin dated 24 December 1991 baldly stating the USSR’s memberships “are continued” by the Russian Federation, and a letter from the traitor USSR ambassador Vorontsov “transmitting” it) was not issued as a UN document”.
Legally, Johnson bases his entire argument exclusively on a complete conceptual (I wouldn’t call it legal) fiction which appears to have been invented ad hoc in 1991: a state “continuing” another state. An oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. It is not law. The only “continuing” state is a state which continues as itself.
And he’s brought up a doctrine of laches and estoppel which don’t apply to this fact situation. Those 2 doctrines protect victims of misleading behaviour. Not the perpetrators. Russia misled the UN members. The UN members are the victims.
the 1947 declaration of the law, that the USSR’s memberships no longer exist (quoted but claimed somehow not to apply to the USSR because of his rewriting of documented fact)
the rest of same 1947 declaration, that “new” states (i.e. dividing off from existing member states) cannot claim membership.
the 1992 application of the 1947 law, in an exact same (but stronger) claim by Serbia and Montenegro, to “continue” the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - which confirmed that states cannot “continue” UN memberships of federations which have ceased to exist, but must apply for membership.
“Representatives” of non-members are expelled by a simple majority General Assembly resolution under Article 18(3) of the UN Charter.
No Security Council veto is possible.
Abstentions aren’t counted.
“Permanent Members’” votes aren’t needed.
“estoppel” and “laches” don’t apply (even where, unlike the case of Russia, the UN had actually passed a resolution implicitly “agreeing” that ROC was entitled to China’s membership and veto, and there was no fraud or concealment by ROC); and that
delay doesn’t prevent correction of a violation of the Charter.
In short - Mr Johnston doesn’t have a single argument to stand on. His “opinion” is the most egregious example of disinformation, contrary to established, undisputed law and fact.
Amplified by a handful of other “western experts” (including senior law academic staff of top Universities, who will be similarly analysed in future substacks here) to deceive governments of the UN membership into continuing a clear violation of the Charter and thus to enable, sponsor and protect terrorism, corruption and disinformation. Breaking down our UN-based world order based on human rights, justice and the rule of law.
The issue is muddied by many commentators confusing “new countries” with existing countries which are not UN members in their own right - maybe in deference to the 1947 determination of the UN Legal Committee on succession, which was dealing with a new country, but the principle actually applies to any non-member breakaways from member states, new or existing.
This fudging obscures the law that existing states which become members of Federations do not lose their status as “countries”, as exemplified by Ukraine being a UN member alongside the USSR. Such countries do not suddenly change into “new countries” if they leave the Federation. For example Syria, a UN member. joined a Federation and later left, and resumed exercising its original membership. The consequence of this fudging is the disinformation argument that the outcome of different cases is based on “consent”, rather than law.
Background: On 24 December 1991 Yuli Vorontsov, USSR’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, formerly First Deputy of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, transmitted Yeltsin’s letter claiming the USSR’s memberships of the United Nation…
Let me explain the law by using examples you may be familiar with. 1. UN memberships cannot be inherited. 1. Can a country take over the UN membership of another country? If one of your lawmakers dies, and I move into that lawmaker's office, sit in your parliament and start voting and speaking as if I am that lawmaker, when I have never been elected to you…
These are my notes in progress, feel free to browse, comment and add. When it is pointed out that Russia is not a member of the UN at all, a popular response is that the UN membership “did not object”, “tacitly consented”, and that the clear explicit provisions of the UN Charter have been somehow changed by that. Although that is as ridiculous as the cla…
