 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Security Council voting procedures
Posted by Matthew Ruck on March 28, 2003 at 10:08:37:
There has been much talk about the illegality of this war due to the
lack of a security council resolution auhtorising the use of force. Whether
this is the case is open to debate. What I think this has highlighted is the
suitablilty or otherwise of the UN as an international institution.
For
example, is the voting procedure in the security council appropriate? The veto
system was a compromise made with what were the Great Powers at the end of the
Second World War to allow the establishment of a world organisation. The Great
powers didnt wish to lose their power within their respective spheres of
influence. The veto is a legacy of the power politics which it would appear
people now have a desire to get away from.
The US and Britain claim they
would have achieved majority support if they had held a vote in the SC. It is a
shame they didnt hold the vote, even knowing France would veto, as they would
have had proof of their claims and it would have highlighted the very problem
with the voting procedure. Perhaps today qualified majority voting would be
more suitable to prevent any one party from preventing the enforcment of
international law. Any thoughts?
© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part
of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European
Law at the European University
Institute.
This file was last modified:
Monday, May 05, 2003 12:09PM