Alternate UN security councils?
- Thread starter dirtyjapaneseman
- Start date
Keeping same structure but limiting the amount times a Veto can be used by permenant members within a given term.
More use of, and an explicit recognition of, a General Assembly override of a Security Council veto, i.e something like Resolution 377 in the UN Charter. Or allowing a SC super-majority (four fifths) override a veto.
Well I know I cant use the veto this time, but if you do that I will start a nuclear war just saying....
I have to admit allowing just one country to veto a resolution was the biggest mistake in creating the UN.
But the UNSC isn't really about doing the right nice good things, its about stopping WWIII. The veto protects the interests of the great powers and therefore prevents them having to resort to force or even overtly threatening to use it. It therefore adds a layer of peaceful legitimacy to maintaining the status quo and preventing large wars like the one that destroyed the LON.
Nukes do that all on their own and the major powers of the world know this. (preventing WWIII)
The UN therefore exists as a center for mediation on lower level conflicts that can escalate to conventional arms between regional powers.
Unfortunately the Veto has negated this possibility as regional powers can cozy up to the permanent members and get them to veto resolutions on their behalf
Somehow I don't see the US or USSR agreeing to that. Or Britain or France.
One suggestion I!ve seen that's interesting is to make it so two vetos are required for something to be immediately killed on the UNSC. Problem is I don't see the USSR agreeing to that, especially early.
I like the supermajority idea, but it means the Soviet Union wouldn't play ball, which would mess up the whole system. Maybe if the Security Council, for whatever reason, wasn't established until 1950 and the PRC was given the Chinese seat earlier.
Wallet
Banned
I also like the idea of a supermajority. Consider this. There have been over a thousand anti Israel resolutions condemning the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
It's usually every nation on Earth except Israel, US, Panama, Great Britain, Paula, Pacific Islands, sometimes the Philippines. Depending on the issue, sometimes some Europeans members abstain. The last vote was 9 against and 138. This easily suppress 3/4 and almost 4/5. Israel has received more condemnations then the rest of the world combined in modern times. But the US always Vetos
A supermajority that blocks veto would change the dynamics of the Middle East dramatically
It's usually every nation on Earth except Israel, US, Panama, Great Britain, Paula, Pacific Islands, sometimes the Philippines. Depending on the issue, sometimes some Europeans members abstain. The last vote was 9 against and 138. This easily suppress 3/4 and almost 4/5. Israel has received more condemnations then the rest of the world combined in modern times. But the US always Vetos
A supermajority that blocks veto would change the dynamics of the Middle East dramatically
No it doesn't it just exposes the 6th fleet to a bit more light....
It also risks the UNSC looking like a laughing stock when it demands stuff and then fails to enforce it afterwards due to US saying no you cant.
Long term its just re-enforces might is right in everybody's minds...