3 ms·

United Nations Resolution 377 [1] "Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of

United Nations Resolution 377 [1] "Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto, ... "Conscious that failure of the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities on behalf of all the Member States… does not relieve Member States of their obligations or the United Nations of its responsibility under the Charter to maintain international peace and security, "Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security, ... "Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

dragonwriter 5y ago
Yes, the Uniting for Peace resolution is a framework for UN collective action in face of veto-power obstructionism, but it doesn't create either the capacity or the will to wage war against a major nuclear power. It works when the malefactor is a diplomatically protected client of a veto power, and maybe if it was one of the lesser (though still nuclear armed) veto powers, but turning back the main force of the military of the USA, Russian Federation, or PRC on their own doorstep? Uniting for Peace is a sideshow for that, it mainly is going to rest on whether one or both of the others of the major powers is willing to commit fully to the fight, and willing to accept the potential of escalation to a major strategic nuclear exchange. (That doesn't mean it's useless; UfP could be used for coordinated action that isn't direct application of armed force, including a globalized sanctions regime.)

dragonwriter 5y ago

Yes, the Uniting for Peace resolution is a framework for UN collective action in face of veto-power obstructionism, but it doesn't create either the capacity or the will to wage war against a major nuclear power. It works when the malefactor is a diplomatically protected client of a veto power, and maybe if it was one of the lesser (though still nuclear armed) veto powers, but turning back the main force of the military of the USA, Russian Federation, or PRC on their own doorstep? Uniting for Peace is a sideshow for that, it mainly is going to rest on whether one or both of the others of the major powers is willing to commit fully to the fight, and willing to accept the potential of escalation to a major strategic nuclear exchange. (That doesn't mean it's useless; UfP could be used for coordinated action that isn't direct application of armed force, including a globalized sanctions regime.)