On April, 26 United Nations General Assembly’s President, Abdulla Shahid, tweeted:
Basically, the General Assembly decided to automatically meet within 10 days, if the veto is used in the Security Council by one of its five permanent members. This decision was taken as a consequence of Russia's veto threat paralyzing the action on the Ukraine war by the United Nations’ Security Council.
In order to better understand to importance of this remarkable resolution, it is fundamental to comprehend the role of the veto power in the United Nations’ Security Council’s dynamics.
The veto power was conferred to China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States by the United Nations Charter and is, after permanency itself, the most significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. The veto power represents their key roles in establishing the United Nations; indeed, the organization was designed so that all major decisions would require the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the big powers[1].
“China has casted 13 of its 16 vetoes since 2000. Together with Russia, it vetoed resolutions on Myanmar and Zimbabwe in 2007 and 2008, with its remaining 11 vetoes in this period being on resolutions related to Syria. Since 2000, Russia has vetoed 27 draft resolutions, 16 on Syria and 3 on Ukraine. It also vetoed resolutions on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, Georgia, Yemen sanctions, Venezuela, and climate and security. The United States is the only member of the P3 (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) that has continued to use its veto – 14 times since 2000, with all but two resolutions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It vetoed a resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002, and its most recent veto was on a counter-terrorism resolution in August 2020”[2].
Veto power has affected the Security Council’s ability to address some of the most serious violations of the United Nations Charter and international law.
Concerning the Syria crisis, the use of the veto has blocked the Security Council’s condemnation of chemical weapons attacks. Regarding the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the veto power has been used to prevent condemnation of the building of illegal settlements, and the use of violence against Palestinians. With regard to the most recent events in Ukraine, the use of the veto power has blocked investigations and the establishment of criminal tribunals, as well as condemnation of Russian’s aggressions against Ukraine
In August 2015, France, with the support of Mexico, launched the “Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity”. The aim was to make the permanent members bound themselves not to use the veto power in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on a large scale. However, only France and the United Kingdom have supported this initiative so far.
Nevertheless, for the first time on April, 26, following the resolution adopted by consensus, any use of the veto power will now trigger a General Assembly meeting, where all United Nations’ members can scrutinize and comment on the veto. The resolution, which will take immediate effect, accords on an exceptional basis, precedence to the veto-casting states in the speakers list, of the subsequent General Assembly debate, thereby inviting them to account for the circumstances behind the use of the veto.
The resolution was spearheaded by Liechtenstein's U.N. ambassador, Christian Wenaweser, he commented saying that its goal is "to promote the voice of all of us who are not veto-holders, and who are not on the Security Council, on matters of international peace and security because they affect all of us."
In presenting the resolution to the assembly, Liechtenstein's U.N. ambassador adressed Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, noting: "There has never been a stronger need for effective multilateralism than today, and there has never been a stronger need for innovation in order to secure the central role and voice of the United Nations."
[1] Article 27 (3) of the U.N. Charter states that decisions on all but procedural matters “shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members”. In the early years of the UN, a norm developed that has held to this day whereby “concurring votes” included affirmative votes as well abstentions.
[2] The United Nations in Hindsight: Challenging the Power of the Security Council Veto (https://www.justsecurity.org/81294/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-challenging-the-power-of-the-security-council-veto/)
Sitography
I. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1116982
Comments