Veto Power
U.N. Charter Reform

Veto Power

The United Nations (the "U.N.") came into being in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: "The maintenance of international peace and security."

Under the U.N. Charter, the its Security Council (the "UNSC") functions within the International Legal System, with 15 Members, 10 non-permanent and 5 permanent, each having one vote, holding a rotating presidency. The UNSC takes the lead in determining, recommending, imposing and even authorizing the use of force. All U.N. Member States are obligated to comply with the Council’s decisions.

The UNSC also recommends to the U.N. Member States General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General, the admission of new Members to the U.N. and along the General Assembly elect the judges of The International Court of Justice.

There are 195 countries in the world today, comprising?193 states?that are member states of the United Nations and 2 governments that are non-member observer states: the 'Holy See' and the 'State of Palestine'.

Whereby, by definition a government is a system or group of people governing an organized community, often a state. In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislature, administration, and judiciary.

Whereas, a conflict of interest is a situation in which a person, organization or government is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation or decision-making of that individual or organization.

Whereas, an unfair advantage is a subjective term that is measured by a standard of proper conduct for persons in similar positions. Unfair generally means unjust, and typically involves acts deemed unethical.

Whereas, the balance of power theory in international relations suggests that national and/or international security is enhanced when political, economic and/or military capability is distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.

Whereas, corruption is an idiosyncratic act of seeking non-meritocratic advantage over others; an advantage that is based on special partiality rather than objective appraisal of qualification, right or merit.

Whereas, in a jury selection, once an individual is chosen for the bench, he/she must remain free of bias and follow the instructions of the court. If a juror fails, he/she may be disqualified and removed from the jury. The court can excuse a juror at any time for good cause. This gives the court broad discretion to disqualify a juror.

Whereas, fair-judgment and the right to be tried by an impartial judge (is deeply embedded in American jurisprudence; in fact, this right has often been considered to be a “cornerstone” in the American legal system for example). Litigants and their counsels often come to believe that a judge has become biased or prejudiced against them, or in favor of an opposing party; however, bias is an attitude or “state of mind,” not an easily provable “fact.” Consequently, even in those jurisdictions which have laws on the books which authorize parties to seek to disqualify judges on the basis of bias, as opposed to interest in the cause, it is typically only in those rare instances when a judge verbalizes bias against a party or its counsel that a motion to recuse can successfully be made on this ground.

Thus, veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, or a member country for example) to unilaterally stop an official action or motion, especially the enactment of legislation or resolution.

  • A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States of America) known as (the "P5") can block any "substantive" resolution.
  • A veto can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the President from blocking an act when significant support for it exists. Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

While, the word "veto" is nowhere to be found in the?U.N. Charter, but the document does mention that Security Council decisions "shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members." By convention, their abstention does not block the measure, despite the wording of Article 27.3 of the?Charter. So, if permanent members aren't unanimous in supporting a resolution, the measure dies. Even if a member was somehow to coax "yeas" out of 14 of the 15 Security Council members, a lone "non" would nix the resolution's passage.

The unconditional veto possessed by the P5 has been seen by critics as the most undemocratic character of the U.N. Critics also claim that veto power is the main cause for international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the United States refused to join the United Nations in 1945 unless it was given a veto. The absence of the United States from the League of Nations contributed to its ineffectiveness.

Various discussions have taken place in recent years over the suitability of the Security Council veto power in today's world. Key arguments included that the five permanent members no longer represent the most stable and responsible member states in the United Nations, and that their veto power slows down and even prevents important decisions being made on matters of international peace and security. Proposals included: Limiting the use of the veto to vital national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto; and abolishing the veto entirely.

However, any reform of the veto has been very difficult, if not impossible. In fact, Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grants the P5 veto over any amendments to the Charter, requiring them to approve of any modifications to the UNSC veto power that they themselves hold: It is highly unlikely that any of the P5 would accept a reform of the U.N. Charter that would be detrimental to their own national interests.

Motherless, under exceptional circumstances the Charter of the United Nations can be amended as it has been five times:

  • In 1965,?Articles 23?was amended to enlarge?the Security Council from 11 to 15 members
  • In 1965,?Article 27?was amended to increase the required number of Security Council votes from 7 to 9
  • In 1965,?Article 61?was amended to enlarge the?Economic and Social Council from 18 to 27 members
  • In 1968,?Article 109?was amended to change the requirements for a?General Conference of Member States for?reviewing the Charter
  • In 1973,?Article 61?was amended again to further enlarge the?Economic and Social Council from 27 to 54 members

I would contend that an amendment of sort is long overdue: "Provisional disenfranchisement or exceptional inadmissibility of a UNSC-P5 member's vote (i.e. veto power) should be invoked strictly on the factual grounds of voting member(s) coefficient implication(s) or evident partiality with the issuing legislation and/or resolution at hand." Lord Edwin E. Hitti

According with CHAPTER XVIII:?AMENDMENTS Article 108 of the U.N. Charter, amendments?must be adopted by?two thirds?of the members of the General Assembly and ratified?by?two thirds?of the members of the United Nations, including all?the?permanent members of the?Security Council.

Pray tell could consistency, adherence to international law, checks and balances, be one day the fundamentals of future Security Council reforms?


Food for thought!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了