UN Security Council members have no veto power

The Great Powers would drop out of the UN or more accurately never would have joined. At most the UN would have even weaker powers than now.
 
The Great Powers would drop out of the UN or more accurately never would have joined. At most the UN would have even weaker powers than now.
Pretty much this, unless you're going an ASB route. At the very least I can't see Stalinist Russia signing up without a veto, and if they don't sign up, they may take several other countries with them; possibly even set up their own rival organisation.
 
Pretty much this, unless you're going an ASB route. At the very least I can't see Stalinist Russia signing up without a veto, and if they don't sign up, they may take several other countries with them; possibly even set up their own rival organisation.

The US isn't either, nor is GB or France or China. None of these countries are going to allow themselves be bound by agreements made by insignificant Third World countries.
 
The US isn't either, nor is GB or France or China. None of these countries are going to allow themselves be bound by agreements made by insignificant Third World countries.
At the time there really weren't that many insignificant third world countries, and GB/France/USA could pretty much buy their votes anyway. China wasn't in any position to say no; only the USSR (to be fair the second most powerful country on the planet) would really object since it was one of two (Mongolia being the other) communist countries at the time. Without the veto, the USSR would be marginalized pretty quickly. So it probably wouldn't join. Then if China goes communist they probably withdraw-as do the nations of eastern europe. And Israel if the Arab countries have their way. Or the Arab countries if the west backs Israel. It'd be the league all over again. If some of the great powers aren't in the UN, it becomes easier for other countries to call it quits if things don't go their way.
 
It's not a way around a veto.

A way around a veto would result in a binding resolution. The resolutions in General Assembly are non binding.

That is pretty much a formality. Neither the Security Council (even if unanimous) nor the General Assembly can really compel any action if nations powerful enough to defy it do so. OTOH, while General Assembly resolutions may not be "coercive" in the sense of *compelling* nations to use force against condemned nation X they provide a legal justification for them to do so--and are thererfore coercive at least from the viewpoint of nation X...
 
That is pretty much a formality. Neither the Security Council (even if unanimous) nor the General Assembly can really compel any action if nations powerful enough to defy it do so. OTOH, while General Assembly resolutions may not be "coercive" in the sense of *compelling* nations to use force against condemned nation X they provide a legal justification for them to do so--and are thererfore coercive at least from the viewpoint of nation X...

No its not. Israel has been the subject of many many General Assembly resolution which it resolutely ignores. A security council resolution carries the possibility of legally empowering nations to carry out actions and for democracies effectively places the government in a position where it would face legal challenges if it did not comply.

So if the General Assembly passes a resolution saying you should not buy oranges from West Bank kibbutzes, the US and UK can ignore it as non-binding. If the security council passes it then they have to follow it or effectively they will be in breach of international treaty commitments and their respective legal systems will tell them so.
 
No its not. Israel has been the subject of many many General Assembly resolution which it resolutely ignores.

And this differs from its reaction to Security Council resolutions--exactly how? http://www.haaretz.com/study-israel-leads-in-ignoring-security-council-resolutions-1.31971

"On the eve of a possible U.S.-British assault on Iraq, Zunes decided to examine in depth one of the main arguments used by the Bush administration to justify changing the Baghdad regime - Iraq's deliberate refusal to implement UN Security Council resolutions. He systematically went through all the states given instructions by the security council to find out how common a phenomenon it was. His results were somewhat surprising: "Some of the countries are considered and are known to be friendly to the U.S.," he told Ha'aretz yesterday. "In the vast majority of cases I examined, the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are countries that receive significant military, diplomatic and financial aid from the U.S."

"Israel leads the list. Since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments' policies and actions. Turkey is in second place, with 24 violations since 1974, and Morocco is third with 17 resolutions it ignored.

"Newsday newspaper published the ranking yesterday, but Zunes said that he did not rank the states and claimed it was newspaper that came up with the grades. According to Zunes, out of some 1,500 UN Security Resolutions passed since 1947, 90 were openly, blatantly, and continually violated without the governments being held accountable for their actions.

"Zunes specifically avoided counting resolutions that are vague or unclear so that governments could claim different interpretations to the meaning of the resolutions. Thus, the famous UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 are not included in his study. He also did not count resolutions that only included condemnations. Instead, he focused on those that included specific calls for changes in the subject governments' policies..."
 
You miss the point. It's not about the target of the resolution ignoring the sanctions, its about those who supported or did not veto the resolution ignoring the sanctions. In a democracy with a strong independent judiciary going against a securtiy council resolution without overwhelming national security interests is going to land the government in a whole heap of trouble. Which is why binding Security Council resolutions are so effective on the UN as a whole (as opposed to their target).
 
Top