VETO i säkerhetsrådet!

[LasseMaja]

Hur är det historiskt, hur ofta har veto använts?
Hur många gånger har respektive stat använt veto?
Vilka fall är de mest kontroversiella?

[Daniel L]

Ett inlägg av Marcus på TRF:

Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five.
The word "veto" is actually never used in the United Nation's charter.
For a resolution to be passed, it needs nine votes in favour from the 15 members of the council, five permanent and 10 non-permanent. These nine votes in favour must include the "concurring votes of the permanent members", the charter says.
The veto power of the permanent members has been widely criticised.
The heavy use of the veto by the Soviet Union and the United States have gone a long way to discrediting the veto system.
During the Cold War the Soviet Union used to veto UN resolutions almost as a matter of course.
More recently, the US has used its veto regularly to shield the Israeli Government from international criticism or attempts to restrain the behaviour of its military.
Critics of the system also point out that among those resolutions that do actually make it onto the books, not all are enforced.
The other main criticism of the veto system is that the permanent five, in effect the victors of World War II, do not reflect the geopolitical realities of today. Specifically, the UK and France, are no longer among the leading five military or economic powers.
Were the veto to be abolished, the majority view at the council would prevail and we might expect more resolutions passed, more situations identified as threats to world security, more cases of states being reprimanded and sanctions being imposed.
This assumes that a new, reformed Security Council would have widely respected powers of enforcement and the funds to carry out its will - the current permanent five council members supply a little under half of the UN's overall budget.
None of the existing permanent council members have indicated that want to surrender their veto. Changes to the UN's charter have to be approved by all five permanent members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

mvh/ Daniel

[barzam]

under kalla kriget satte som sagt stormakterna sitt veto i system.

[varjag]

'Veto' var nastan det enda ord sovjeterna yttrade i sakerhetsraadet under dess forsta aar. Med rysstjurighet 'bojkottade' tillfalligtvis Säkerhetsraadets sammantraden just nar Nordkorea anfoll Sydkorea och USA (latt kamoflerade som FN) kunde ingripa och till slut radda landet till,om inte demokrati, saa aatminstone demokratur fraan vilken landet tillvaxt till en blomstrande ekonomi, en ekonomisk faktor och gjort de halvsvaltande Stalinisterna norr om 38:e breddgraden gröna av avundsjuka - daa deras 'system' - sedan sju decennier valkänt,bara kan producera svält,undernaring,korruption, krigsvapen och nu sist - atombomber. Det vore skönt om Säkerhetsraadet helt enkelt kunde 'veto' hela Nordkorea och landet sjonk i havet - men saa latt blir det nog inte.

[LasseMaja]

Jag tackar "varjag" för den politiska pamfletten, Vilka fler fall än korea har varit kontroversiella?