Deputy chairperson of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
First, the withdrawal of the UN General Assembly beyond its statutory powers.
Issues of international peace and security (and this is how this resolution is presented by its initiators) belong to the exclusive competence of the Security Council (Chapter VII of the UN Charter).
The General Assembly can only draw the attention of the Security Council to situations that could threaten international peace and security (paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the UN Charter).
This is also evidenced by the text of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the UN Charter: “When the Security Council performs the functions assigned to it by this charter in relation to any dispute or situation, the General Assembly may not make any recommendations concerning this dispute or situation.”
Secondly, the issue of compensation for damage is the property issue, by the other words, legal.
The legal issue is always connected with the dispute between the two parties, the establishment of guilt, justice, the calculation of the amounts of compensation and evidence among others.
In the UN system, the main judicial body considering any legal issues is the International Court of Justice (Article 92 of the Charter).
For example, in the case of Nicaragua vs. USA (1986), the court first found the USA guilty of violating Nicaragua’s sovereignty, interfering in its internal affairs and using force, and then decided on the issue of compensation of a specific sum of money.
Why was the resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly?
Answer: because only in this UN body the collective West have, albeit manipulated, but still a majority, and Russia does not have the right of veto.
Thirdly and finally, this resolution lays the foundation for future arrests of Russian assets abroad.
This, in turn, violates the immunities of Russian property abroad, which it is endowed with under international law and national legislation.
If it is diplomatic property, it is protected by paragraph 3 of article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
If it is any other state property, then it also has immunity from coercive actions by virtue of the usual norms of international law (the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property).
In many countries, the seizure of foreign assets is prohibited by law.
For example, in the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is in force.
Thus, the resolution adopted yesterday is null and void both in its legal force. As for the prospects for its practical implementation, they would also be negligible. But alas — the unipolar world with its convulsions continues to rule.