|
|
Re: veto/permanent member structure of the Security CouncilPosted by John Sigler on April 08, 2003 at 14:29:49: In Reply to: veto/permanent member structure of the Security Council posted by sadashivan on April 08, 2003 at 09:02:57: I think most people agree that either the permanent member system should be abolished and/or that the veto should be removed. The problem is that Article 108 of the Charter requires the consent of "all the permanent members of the Security Council" in order to amend the Charter - and obviously those states benefitting from permanent member status and veto rights aren't going to consent to losing their special powers. So, generally speaking, the only way to abolish the permanent member system and the veto is to form a new organization under a different Charter, however, if this new organization does not alot special powers to certain states, it is doubtful that those states would join. The United States, for example, generally never joins any international organization unless it is given special powers and rights - WTO, GATT, World Bank, UN, NATO, &c. So any new organization would probably be very much like the already existing League on Non-Aligned States, OSCE, &c. Further, not only is it doubful that many of the powers would join the new organization, it can also be safely assumed that that the powers would pressure their subordinate states into refusing to join the new group as well. So, that is the problem. The United Nations reform topic has been
discussed by the General Assembly for years, special working groups exist on
the topic as well as national NGOs. Nevertheless, the UN Charter essentially
makes reform impossible without the consent of the permanent members of the
Security Council, who will obviously defend their special status. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law | |||||||||||||||||||||||