United Nations Security Council and Abstaining
On The West Wing tonight, CJ told the Chinese ambassador he could just abstain from a vote instead of vetoing it or voting for it.
However, a concurring vote from all five permanent member is required for any Security Council decision. Vetoing really means either a no vote, or abstaining from a vote.
There's one exception: if the abstention is due to the member being a party to the vote, it does not result in a veto, if the resolution is in regard to settling a dispute peacefully. I wonder how closely this is enforced though: can France just say they are abstaining from any given vote by saying it will help settle some dispute peacefully and they are a party to it?
Probably, given the UN's record of enforcing its own rules.
However, a concurring vote from all five permanent member is required for any Security Council decision. Vetoing really means either a no vote, or abstaining from a vote.
There's one exception: if the abstention is due to the member being a party to the vote, it does not result in a veto, if the resolution is in regard to settling a dispute peacefully. I wonder how closely this is enforced though: can France just say they are abstaining from any given vote by saying it will help settle some dispute peacefully and they are a party to it?
Probably, given the UN's record of enforcing its own rules.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment