5 ms·

What I'd like to know is whether there's the potential to have their UN security council seat revoked. I don't know if there's even a contingency in place for t

What I'd like to know is whether there's the potential to have their UN security council seat revoked. I don't know if there's even a contingency in place for that (if not, that was a foolish omission), but if there is, Russia is certainly moving in the right direction to hit it based on their current popularity deficit.

jbooth 13y ago
I'm pretty sure the 5 permanent members are 'made men' and can't be revoked, but even if there were a mechanism, you can bet that China would veto it. The UN isn't NATO -- the whole point of it is to have a common forum for countries that aren't military allies and have conflicting interests.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  If the governments with a permanent UNSC seat couldn't lose that seat, the (People's Republic of) China wouldn't have a vote at all.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Ha, fair enough. That slipped my mind, and now I'm going to go read up on the details of how exactly that happened, mechanically. EDIT: Just a general assembly vote was enough, apparently. That's a weird situation all around though, hard to analogize to kicking a country off (as opposed to deciding who speaks for that country).
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > That's a weird situation all around though, hard to analogize to kicking a country off It takes a 2/3 vote in the GA to expel a country completely from the UN. (See Articles 6 and 18 of the Charter.)
azernik 13y ago
Absolutely not, and it's by design, not foolish omission. The point of the permanent Security Council seats isn't to reward states for good behavior, but rather to recognize the reality that when a great power like Russia or the US or China feels that UN institutions are acting against its core interests, it can tear the whole structure down. So yeah, the veto-wielding members can veto any attempt to take that power away. The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.
- mildtrepidation 13y ago
  The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful. I'd call that a contradiction. The principle can't possibly be that useful if, a few decades later, the result of its application is deadlock. Anyway, I'm not suggesting they should. It just crossed my mind as something they might look at after this.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The principle can't possibly be that useful if, a few decades later, the result of its application is deadlock. It deadlocked less than a decade in, which is a big part of how we ended up with the current operation where the things in the UN Charter that plainly say they require the approval of all the permanent members of the Security Council are treated as if the permanent members have a veto which they must be present and affirmatively choose to use. (It's also how we ended up with the "Uniting for Peace" [1] framework for an end-run around deadlocked veto powers even if they are present and actively voting.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  EDIT: Deleted parent claimed there was no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the UNSC Sure there is: a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly can expel a member-state of the UN (and the General Assembly can, as it did in the case of China -- a permanent member of the Security Council -- also decide to recognize a different government as the legitimate representative of a member-state, which has much the same effect.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jbooth 13y ago

I'm pretty sure the 5 permanent members are 'made men' and can't be revoked, but even if there were a mechanism, you can bet that China would veto it. The UN isn't NATO -- the whole point of it is to have a common forum for countries that aren't military allies and have conflicting interests.

dragonwriter 13y ago
If the governments with a permanent UNSC seat couldn't lose that seat, the (People's Republic of) China wouldn't have a vote at all.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Ha, fair enough. That slipped my mind, and now I'm going to go read up on the details of how exactly that happened, mechanically. EDIT: Just a general assembly vote was enough, apparently. That's a weird situation all around though, hard to analogize to kicking a country off (as opposed to deciding who speaks for that country).
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's a weird situation all around though, hard to analogize to kicking a country off It takes a 2/3 vote in the GA to expel a country completely from the UN. (See Articles 6 and 18 of the Charter.)

azernik 13y ago

Absolutely not, and it's by design, not foolish omission. The point of the permanent Security Council seats isn't to reward states for good behavior, but rather to recognize the reality that when a great power like Russia or the US or China feels that UN institutions are acting against its core interests, it can tear the whole structure down. So yeah, the veto-wielding members can veto any attempt to take that power away. The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.

mildtrepidation 13y ago
The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful. I'd call that a contradiction. The principle can't possibly be that useful if, a few decades later, the result of its application is deadlock. Anyway, I'm not suggesting they should. It just crossed my mind as something they might look at after this.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The principle can't possibly be that useful if, a few decades later, the result of its application is deadlock. It deadlocked less than a decade in, which is a big part of how we ended up with the current operation where the things in the UN Charter that plainly say they require the approval of all the permanent members of the Security Council are treated as if the permanent members have a veto which they must be present and affirmatively choose to use. (It's also how we ended up with the "Uniting for Peace" [1] framework for an end-run around deadlocked veto powers even if they are present and actively voting.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago
EDIT: Deleted parent claimed there was no mechanism to remove a permanent member of the UNSC Sure there is: a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly can expel a member-state of the UN (and the General Assembly can, as it did in the case of China -- a permanent member of the Security Council -- also decide to recognize a different government as the legitimate representative of a member-state, which has much the same effect.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]