[Teehar]

Just out of interest, does anyone know if there is anything preventing a resolution to remove the veto in the SC. Lebanon believes this is crucial to preventing the UN from becoming as big a failure as its predecessor, the League of Nations. Lebanon recognises the use of the veto by the major powers as a result of personal interests, preventing the creation of resolutions in the interests of humanity.

[Nutter]

Australia is extremely interested to see a draft of this resolution, and will, in all likelihood, support this resolution.

We realise there are many complexities involved since the SC would just veto or vote against the passing of this council, but surely there would be an avenue, through the SG or otherwise, for SC procedures to be modified against the favour of SC member countries.

We urge the DPRK representative to draft this resolution, and call on the Deputy SG to explain the process involved in the reading, circulation, and voting of this resolution. We are aware that when the UNGA meets in an emergency session, no country has veto power. However, this would hardly warrant an emergency session, and we therefore ask for an alternative route.

[Teehar]

AFAIK a resolution concerning a country cannot be vetoed by that country

[Nutter]

(Original post by 6+6=6)
AFAIK a resolution concerning a country cannot be vetoed by that country

This would be concerning all member of the UNSC - so does that mean that they're effectively incapacitated of their veto powers?

[Teehar]

yes i would assume so

[Nutter]

Or we could just wait for brimstone to clarify the actual policy.

That's if he even knows in the first place.

[Teehar]

lol i think this might be too big for him

[Nefarious]

If it were possible, I'm sure that in real life no doubt a similar resolution would have been tabled at some point. Russia sees the veto as an important tool for preserving the stability of the UN and would veto such a resolution (If that is possible) or at least vote against it in the SC. I expect that China, The USA , France and the UK would all do likewise.

[Nutter]

All UN member countries would ALSO expect you to vote against this proposal, of course.

In the real world, even if this was possible, it is unlikely becauseo of the many economic/political ramifications (that may have gargantuan implications) that could arise from a successful vote and passage of the resolution.

Also, especially since you were just voted into that position, one would be a fool to expect you to vote otherwise.

[Teehar]

how about something more specific. like the US losing its veto when it concerns Israel. can you guys not see the veto is destroying the UN and turning it into an outdated and impotent organisation where only watered down resolutions are produced?

[Nefarious]

(Original post by 6+6=6)
how about something more specific. like the US losing its veto when it concerns Israel. can you guys not see the veto is destroying the UN and turning it into an outdated and impotent organisation where only watered down resolutions are produced?

OOC: Yes

IC: No

[Teehar]

not necessarily i genuinly believe that there will be a time in RL when nations will recognise the need to remove the veto. I think nefarious supporting this would be a bold move and a recognition tha the UN needs to move with the times. when have we ever seen an SG in RL get so pissed off with the SC?

[Knogle]

(Original post by 6+6=6)
AFAIK a resolution concerning a country cannot be vetoed by that country

Not true. This was debated at length some time ago (IIRC it was during the taiwan-china DoW simulation debate), and we concluded that the veto power can be used even if a resolution concerns the P5 country, unless it meets specific criteria listed in the UN charter. If you would be so kind, dig through the thread and reveal the facts.. i'm positive they're in there.

[Knogle]

(Original post by 6+6=6)
how about something more specific. like the US losing its veto when it concerns Israel. can you guys not see the veto is destroying the UN and turning it into an outdated and impotent organisation where only watered down resolutions are produced?

While I see where you're coming from, I'm afraid that it just won't happen. Never in RL, anyway.

[Nefarious]

(Original post by Knogle)
Not true. This was debated at length some time ago (IIRC it was during the taiwan-china DoW simulation debate), and we concluded that the veto power can be used even if a resolution concerns the P5 country, unless it meets specific criteria listed in the UN charter. If you would be so kind, dig through the thread and reveal the facts.. i'm positive they're in there.

Besides even if such a resolution passed the GA and the P5 couldn't veto it they would still all get a normal vote and therefore it wouldn't pass the SC anyway.

[UnaChance]

True, a veto isn't the only way to stop a res passing, 3/5 is a majority so only 3 members have to like their veto enough to keep it.

Plus it would make real life situations a lot more difficult

[Knogle]

(Original post by Nefarious)
Besides even if such a resolution passed the GA and the P5 couldn't veto it they would still all get a normal vote and therefore it wouldn't pass the SC anyway.

Bear in mind, though, that the UNSC in the real UN is a lot larger than 5 members.

[Teehar]

this isnt RL, we can recognise the deficiencies of the real UN and build on this accordingly.

[Knogle]

(Original post by 6+6=6)
this isnt RL, we can recognise the deficiencies of the real UN and build on this accordingly.

Any resolution that involves the P5 losing their veto power is going to be vetoed, period. That's how things will work.

[Nutter]

(Original post by Knogle)
Any resolution that involves the P5 losing their veto power is going to be vetoed, period. That's how things will work.

There we go Teehar, just like we all expected.