Good Research Proposal On Below, We Examine The Use Of Veto, For Each Of The Security Council States.

Veto disrupt the effectiveness of the United Nations (international Public Law)

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to outline the Power of Veto, bestowed upon the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, also known as Permanent Five or Big Five, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States . Initially, we will approach the weight that the veto right has, in the function of the UN, how it has affected in a number of cases of conflicts, especially the invasion of Iraq, how that power can interrupt the efficiency of the United Nations and whether or not its influence comes in terms with the principles of the UN Charter. In a second stage, we are going to study on the use of the Veto throughout the UN’s history, how and when specifically it was used and what state-member moved forward in its utilization. Finally, we will examine diverse suggestions of improving or abolishing the Security Council’s right to veto that were explained by the Bureau of the Working Group in May 1998.

Veto disrupts the effectiveness of the United Nations

The power of veto is presented in article 27 in a very delicate way. The word itself does not appear in the article but is subtly mentioned in the third paragraph:
“1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”
The level of use of Veto power was in extraordinary heights during the Cold War especially amid the United States and the Soviet Union. Up until 1989 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, the usual number of vetoes cast each year was usually more than five. Since then, that figure is merely above one. The substantial abuse of the Veto right during the first decades after the formation of the organization discredited the SC veto method. Moreover, the menace regarding the use of the veto right would also have a great influence as it paralyzed the acts of the Security Council in more than one occasions. As a result, by using or threatening the use of veto, the Security Council could only have an inadequate role in certain conflicts and interferences in which its Permanent Members were entangled – for instance in Afghanistan , Algeria, Hungary, Vietnam, Panama, the Sino-Vietnamese war, and more recently Iraq and Georgia.

Russia/Soviet Union is the state that used the power of the most, throughout the UN’s history. Only in the first decade (from 1946 to1955) the Soviet Union was accountable for 80 uses of the right. Minister Molotov was jokingly referred to as a Mr. Nyet as he repeatedly and over time rejected membership petitions for new states in the US sphere of influence because of the respective US threat of refusal to admit the Soviet states. However, since 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, the emerging Russia has used its veto power five times in two decades, a significant drop and a hopeful message for the future.
The United States started using the power of Veto in the seventies and since then it holds the place of the most repeated user. The US has rejected in total thirty two resolutions condemning South Africa, Namibia, Nicaragua and Vietnam. More recently, the United States UN representative has utilized the veto right frequently to shield the Israeli Government from worldwide disapproval on efforts to contain the actions of its military. Such an example occurred, on February of 2011, when the US administration rejected resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.
The United Kingdom usually utilized its veto power along with the United States and France. It rejected along with France the resolution that was meant at solving the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. Ultimately the UK withdrew after the U.S. administration, initiated an "emergency special session" of the General Assembly, under the positions of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. The UK individually also used the veto seven times in the matter of Rhodesia (which was later to become Zimbabwe).
France has used its veto power cautiously. It rejected a resolution in 1976 on the matter of the Comoros independence, when the isle of Mayotte had remained in French sovereignty as a result of the local residents vote. Moreover, the danger of French veto on the approaching 2003 invasion of Iraq, caused roughness in the relations between France and the United States. The French administration has since then utilized the threat of a veto to back Morocco's position in the Western Sahara conflict.
Regarding China (or the People’s Republic of China) the representative of China’s administration has used the right to veto only once, between the years 1946 and 1971, in the matter of Mongolian petition to join the UN. This suspended the admission of the state until 1960, when the Soviet Union declared that unless Mongolia was admitted, it would not grant permission for the total of all the recently self-governing African states.

Image: Data from the use of veto since the formation of UN

In the case of Iraq, in March 2003 the United States administration, through President Bush, proclaimed that since "diplomacy has failed" they would proceed, along with "coalition of the willing" to free Iraq from the regime of Saddam Hussein and destroy weapons of mass destruction that the US administration claimed Iraq had in possession. As a consequence, the invasion of Iraq began in the 19th of March, 2003. Preceding this conclusion, a substantial amount of conversations, diplomacy and debate took place amongst the members of the Security Council with the purpose of dealing with the condition, but they were unsuccessful partly due to the threat of a US –along with other countries- veto on proposed alternative solutions. Almost a year and a half after the invasion, Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, was quoted as saying, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.” .

The need to reform the way the vote in the Security Council

The global ups and downs that have taken place in every level, from political to economical since the formation of the UN back in 1945, have caused extensive debate over whether the five UN Security Council members continue today to make up the appropriate states to hold the right of veto and as a subsequent but perhaps more important debate, whether that right is still needed or outdated Many administrations around the world oppose the veto right for its suspected violation of the values of sovereign fairness among the 193 members and the principles of democracy and equality.
At the conference of the UN Working Group back in May 1998, a number of suggestions were proposed regarding the restructuring of the veto power. There are three distinctive clusters that came up with different answers. The first and the most drastic possibility is a total elimination of the veto right. The state-members that back this solution are Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Malaysia, New Zealand, Yugoslavia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen. The Colombian administration reasons that it has become a necessity to frame a specific proposal to change the veto apparatus either through an eligible majority or by a weighted vote, according to the type of resolutions to be voted, or through the dynamic contribution of other bodies of UN, particularly, the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Ukrainian administration enhanced that position by claiming that the establishment of veto right is politically baseless and archaic. The second group of state-members has come up with detailed propositions for the constraint of the veto power and an overall evaluation of the current structure of voting in the Security Council. The first of those proposals was to put a limit on the possibility of a veto. One solution would be to allow the use of the right only for the rules under the Chapter VII of the UN Charter “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION” . The third group of state-members recommended the addition in the number of permanent members of the Security Council. However, they stressed that the newly-admitted to the Security Council members, to not be given the veto right since such an act would be viewed as firming a characteristically high-handed entitlement which should be limited and finally eliminated. On the other hand, Australia claims that raising the number of Security Council members would disturb the UN’s efficiency. Advocates of the veto mechanism proclaimed that it was not established as an egalitarian measure, to begin, but rather an effective tool which aided preserving harmony among the permanent members and a firm decision-making method.

Bibliography

BBC News. «Iraq war illegal, says Annan.» BBC News (2004).
Coulon, Jocelyn. Soldiers of Diplomacy: The United Nations, Peacekeeping, and the New World Order. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Fasulo, Linda. An Insider's Guide to the UN. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Fomerand, Jacques. The A to Z of the United Nations. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2009.
Hillier, Timothy. Sourcebook on Public International Law. London: Cavendish Publishing, 1998.
King, John. «Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'.» CNN News (2002).
Meisler, Stanley. United Nations: The First Fifty Years. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995.
Schlesinger, Stephen. Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003.
United Nations. «Charter of the United Nations.» 26 June 1945. Charter of the United Nations. 8 March 2015. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml>.
Voices of America. «Bush Officially Notifies Congress: Iraq Diplomacy Has Failed - 2003-03-19.» Voices of America (2009).