United Nations Security Council veto power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United Nations Security Council veto power is a veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, enabling them to void any Security Council substantive resolution regardless of the level of general support. This power is exercised when any permanent member enters a "nay" vote. An abstention vote or absence is taken as allowing the measure to pass.

The veto does not apply to procedural matters, which is significant in that it allows the Security Council to debate a resolution even if it is likely to be vetoed by a permanent member.

1 History
2 Article 27
3 Most common users
4 Graphic Representation
5 Analysis by country
6 Controversies
- 6.1 Veto power reform
- 6.2 Extending Council membership and new nation powers
7 Reference
8 External links

[edit] History

The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course," France should be permanent members. France had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany, but its role as a permanent member of the League of Nations, its status as a colonial power and the activities of the Free French forces on the allied side allowed it a place at the table with the Big Four.

[edit] Article 27

Article 27 of the United Nations Charter states:

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

During the Korean War the Soviet Union left an "empty chair" with the aim of preventing any Security Council resolutions on the matter. Despite the apparently clear wording of the charter, this was treated as a non-blocking abstention and since then all abstentions and absences have been treated as not being a veto. This has the unexpected advantage of allowing a permanent member to express its opposition to a measure without blocking it by abstaining.

[edit] Most common users

The majority—more than half—of all vetos in the history of the Security Council were exercised by the Soviet Union. Since shortly before the fall of the USSR, the United States has been the most frequent user of the veto.^[1]

Between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of 2004, vetoes were exercised on 19 occasions. For that period, usage breaks down as follows:

the United States used the veto on 13 occasions (11 regarding Israel, one Bosnia, one Panama)
Russia/the Soviet Union used the veto on three occasions (two regarding Cyprus, one Bosnia)

[edit] Graphic Representation

[edit] Analysis by country

[edit] Russia/Soviet Union

See also Soviet Union and the United Nations.

In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet Union commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto". In fact, the Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast—79 vetoes were used in the first 10 years. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S.'s refusal to admit the Soviet republics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians have used their veto power sparingly.

[edit] United States

See also United States and the United Nations.

The U.S. first used the veto power in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and first issued a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution censuring Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel (see Negroponte doctrine). This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as seen with the 2003 Iraqi war which was not endorsed by the UN.

[edit] China (ROC/PRC)

See also China and the United Nations.

Between 1946 and 1971, the Chinese seat on the Security Council was occupied by the Republic of China (from 1949 on Taiwan) during which its representative used the veto only once (to block the People's Republic of Mongolia's application for membership in 1955 because the ROC considered Mongolia to be a part of China). This postponed the admission of Mongolia until 1960, when the Soviet Union announced that unless Mongolia was admitted, it would block the admission of all of the newly independent African states. Faced with this pressure, the ROC relented under protest.

After the Republic of China's expulsion from the United Nations in 1971, the first veto exercised by the present occupant, the People's Republic of China, was exercised in 25 August 1972 over Bangladesh's admission to the United Nations. As of 2004, the People's Republic of China has used their veto four times.

[edit] France

France uses its veto power sparingly. It used it in 1976 on the question of the Comoros independence, when the island of Mayotte was kept in French territory due to the vote of the local population. The threat of a French veto of resolution on the Iraq war caused friction between France and the United States.

[edit] United Kingdom

The United Kingdom used its veto power, along with France, to veto a resolution to resolve the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. They eventually withdrew after the U.S. called an emergency session under UN General Assembly Resolution 377. The UK also used the veto unilaterally seven times because of Rhodesia.

[edit] Controversies

[edit] Veto power reform

Discussions have taken place over the suitability of the veto power in the UN Security Council. Key arguments include that the selection of permanent members no longer represent the most stable and responsible member states in the United Nations and that the veto power slows down important political decisions. Due to the changes that have taken place politically and economically on a global scale since the forming of the UN Security Council in 1945, widespread debate has been apparent over whether the current permanent members of the UN Security Council are the best member states to hold veto power. While all permanent members are still regarded as great powers, there is debate over their suitability to retain veto power.^{[citation needed]} Another argument against retaining the veto power is that it is detrimental to fast, balanced political decisions. The Rwandan Genocide serves as an example of when the veto power proved detrimental to the genesis of a global relief effort that could have reduced the severity of the genocide.^[2] Debate also exists over the use of the veto power as a political aid to a permanent member's allies. The United States of America have used their veto power more than any other permanent member since 1972, particularly in resolutions condemning Israel. This has spread concerns that the veto power serves as a medium for permanent members to benefit their allies with the power of the UN Security Council.

The veto power was originally intended as a preventative measure, to disallow brash resolutions that could have negative consequences.^{[citation needed]} Advocates of the veto power believe that this is still necessary in the current geo-political landscape, and that without the veto power, the UN Security Council would be open to making "majority rules" decisions that have implications on a global level.^[3] Perhaps it should take two "nay votes" from permanent members to be considered a veto.

[edit] Extending Council membership and new nation powers

See also Reform of the United Nations Security Council.

Along with discussions of expanding the permanent Council membership has been the issue of whether or not to extend the veto power to the new permanent members. The current members appear amenable to expanding the Council membership, but more ambivalent about (or flat-out against) extending the veto power, arguing that doing so would paralyze the Security Council and make it ineffectual. On the other hand, members of the G4, consisting of India, Germany, Brazil, and Japan argue that the present Security Council composition represents the world of 1946 rather than 2006. According to these countries, the Security Council must represent greater number of people otherwise the importance of Security Council might be lost and that the United Nations would have the same fate as that of the League of Nations. All four countries have launched a massive diplomatic effort to create a general consensus in their favour.