Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The United Nations Security Council 'power of veto' refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council,[1] enabling them to prevent the adoption of any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a 'procedural' draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.

The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called 'P5' — casts a "negative" vote on a 'substantive' draft resolution. Abstention, or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

where is the democracy in such a law ? could someone explains to me the roll of the UN if the last decisions are up to the veto countries approval ?
I don't get it!
kanelli and chocoholic., does this remind you of someones attitues ? again I'm serious, what or how relevant is it to the western democracy??

Can you provide the link to the source of the cut and paste you just posted. I'm guessing you cut and pasted only selected parts, without fulling going into the info for how or why such a veto came into being. Did you research any other information on the veto?

And the veto rule sucks, has been a disaster to many UN actions supported by the wider international community. (Shock and horror - I didn't post what you ASSumed I would.)

the veto was made to protect israel...now some1 will come and say hey its for the whole world ..yea rite ..

true, veto power is brought by certain countries just to find themselves immune to any resolution council brings, which would be found not favoring p5 members.

It's taken verbatim (as of this moment) from Wikipedia's article on the UNSC veto power. From that same page:

"Although not couched in the same language, various high-level reports make explicit reference to the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution as providing the necessary mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any vetoes in the UNSC; thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action."

Most veto powers often come attached with mechanisms to overrule any veto. It's one of the ways to implement checks and balances between different branches of government.

i always believed in giving power to the ppl.

The power of veto is there to avoid any particular resolution being bogged down in procedure or being hijacked by any one particular secular group. Its there to protect a very complex multi-ethnic, multi political structure.

Its like having a panel of judges to make a final decision and arbitrate on an issue. It does not protect or favour any one individual member.

For further reading check out 'Filibustering'.



Knight

it does say that veto power does not favour any one individual member, but only in books. Practically it DOES protect individual members' interests, especially US, which is apparent from the events happened in last few years.

Again a (Moderated for insulting language) moderator thinks the UN Security Council veto power does not favour any group although only 5 countries are allowed to hold it.

Those 5 countries are all nuclear powers and won the second 'world war'.

If you want non-bias, allow all countries to have the veto.

For me the United Nations is a dead organization the moment it failed to do anything about anglo ammerican illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 CE. It has been dead ever since. Its fate is the same as 'league of nations'

Dubai Knight wrote:The power of veto is there to avoid any particular resolution being bogged down in procedure or being hijacked by any one particular secular group. Its there to protect a very complex multi-ethnic, multi political structure.

Its like having a panel of judges to make a final decision and arbitrate on an issue. It does not protect or favour any one individual member.

For further reading check out 'Filibustering'.



Knight

but I think it should also be provided for a middle eastern Moderated country.. I know this far from reality but it would make this power suitable for all multi-ethnic believes around the world, not only a hand picked ones !!

uaekid wrote:

Dubai Knight wrote:The power of veto is there to avoid any particular resolution being bogged down in procedure or being hijacked by any one particular secular group. Its there to protect a very complex multi-ethnic, multi political structure.

Its like having a panel of judges to make a final decision and arbitrate on an issue. It does not protect or favour any one individual member.

For further reading check out 'Filibustering'.



Knight

but I think it should also be provided for a middle eastern Moderated country.. I know this far from reality but it would make this power suitable for all multi-ethnic believes around the world, not only a hand picked ones !!

In an ideal world, all countries would have some power of veto, however we are not able to affect the decisions of the greater powers. You also have to remember who initially set up and who runs the UN. Having dealt with the EEC government, I can assure you its all political and there is very little real work done. Everyone is trying to climb one rung higher on the political ladder at the expense of someone else.

We don't live in a perfect world. It would nice nice to, but naiive of anyone to think its possible. Human nature is just too competitive.



Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:Having dealt with the EEC government, I can assure you its all political and there is very little real work done. Everyone is trying to climb one rung higher on the political ladder at the expense of someone else.

I consider that to be a blessing in disguise. It seems that the more "work" these jerks do, the more screwed up things get. Look at what happens anywhere in the world when governments work quickly. You'll find it runs the whole gauntlet of oppression, corruption, civil and human rights abuses, and, as we saw March 2003, starting useless wars.

Occasionally, we need quick solutions. Unfortunately, quick seems to equate to wrong way too often.

muslimbangladeshi wrote:Those 5 countries are all nuclear powers and won the second 'world war'.

There are only 3 of them who won.
Anyway It's the first time I listen about democracy or majority rule in political or economical relationships between different countries.

The bilateral relashionship are always unequal but sometimes has some benefit for both sides...