4 ms·

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

by 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 The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.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The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.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...

4 ms·

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

by azernik 13y ago

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The set of states with vetos may be a little out of date - it's basically the major powers left standing after WWII - but the principle is still useful.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...