# 75 countries back France's drive for reform limiting use of UN Veto



## CougarKing (30 Sep 2015)

An overdue reform for the UN? Somehow I doubt the other four members of the UN Security Council will even take this seriously and use their vetoes to stop this in its tracks:

Reuters



> *Dozens of nations back French appeal to limit use of UN veto*
> Louis Charbonneau and John Irish, Reuters
> Posted at 10/01/2015 8:43 AM
> UNITED NATIONS - Dozens of nations signed on to a French proposal on Wednesday that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council refrain from exercising their veto in cases of mass atrocities and genocide.
> ...


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

Isn't there a certain number of member votes that can overturn a veto?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Isn't there a certain number of member votes that can overturn a veto?



No.

The only way _might_ be to "end run" the UNSC ... consider, e.g. the "Acheson Plan" ~ the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A ~ which was adopted on 3 Nov 50. it said that when the UNSC, due to discord amongst its five permanent members, _fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security_, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary ... _yada, yada, yada_.

The key to the Acheson Plan was the highlighted phrase, taken directly from Article 1 of the UN Charter, about "maintaining international peace and security." I'm not sure UNSC reform rises to the standard. I am sure, however, that there are no Dean Achesons stalking the halls of power anywhere in Paris, London, dozens of other nations, or Washington. It took brains and balls to do what Acheson did ...


----------



## Staff Weenie (1 Oct 2015)

Until this is addressed, the UN will never be able to truly achieve its mandate.  The question is, what will happen if the reform is enacted? What will Russia do, if suddenly it faces censure and sanctions for its actions in the Crimea? The US is also no Altar Boy either, and has propped up one too many tinpot dictators in the past. Will the reform lead to greater global stability, and reduce acts of genocide, or will it risk one or more of the five key players leaving the UN and just doing what they want?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Oct 2015)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> . . .  The question is, what will happen if the reform is enacted? . . .



Maybe I missed something in the linked article, but there doesn't seem to be anything to "enact".  France has not proposed amending either the UN Charter (specifically Article 27 which deals with voting in the Security Council) or the Rules of Procedure of the Security Council.  What they have proposed is an "initiative" (seemingly non-binding and voluntary) to limit the use of the "veto" (_though the word "veto" is not found in either the Charter or Rules of Procedure_) when dealing with issues involving genocide and mass atrocities.  In essence, (in my opinion) it is simply an appeal to the "better nature" of the fellow permanent members of the Council, however I would probably question whether some of those permanent members have any "better nature".  While the commitment of multiple member states to this proposal may (and it's a big "may") make permanent members of the UNSC take note, if those who don't want to follow this lead tell the others to "f**k off at the high port" then the rest will "f**k off at the high port".


----------



## Staff Weenie (1 Oct 2015)

Poor choice of wording on my part - you are correct that by protocol, this initiative cannot be imposed upon the permanent members of the security Council in any binding form. However one must wonder for how long that will even stand? The rationale for the legacy right of those five nations to have so much 'power' in the UN is wearing thin, especially to emerging nations such as Brazil, or India.


----------

