|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the organ of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. While other organs of the United Nations only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter. The decisions of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council Resolutions. The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of five permanent seats and ten temporary seats. The permanent five are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. These members hold veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to block adoption but not debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms with member states voted in by the UN General Assembly on a regional basis. The Presidency of the Security Council is rotated alphabetically each month.
History
Since its first meeting, the Council, which exists in continuous session, has travelled widely, holding meetings in many cities, such as Paris and Addis Ababa. For the most part, however, it has remained located at UN Headquarters — first at Lake Success in New York and then at its current home in New York City. Significant changes in the Council’s composition have occurred on three occasions. In 1965, amendments to articles 23 and 27 of the Charter came into effect, increasing the number of elected members from six to ten. In 1971 the General Assembly voted to remove the representative of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and seat the delegate from the People's Republic of China as the legitimate representative of China. Because the issue was presented as one involving which delegation would properly represent China rather than that of an admission or expulsion of a member, this issue required only action by the General Assembly and circumvented the inability of the Assembly to expel a member of the Council without the Council’s endorsement (subject to veto), or the lack of an amendment to article 23 specifying the identity of the permanent members.
MembersImage:UNSC 2007.png The Security Council as of 2007, showing permanent members and current elected members. Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to crises. The role of president of the Security Council involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings and overseeing any crisis. It rotates in alphabetical order of the members' names in English. There are two categories of membership in the UN Security Council: Permanent Members and Elected Members. Permanent members
The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:
Two of the original members, the Republic of China and Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states, even though Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations has not been accordingly amended: Since the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War, there have been two states and countries claiming to represent the nation of China and thus both claim each others territory. In 1971, the People's Republic of China was awarded China's seat in the United Nations (in this context "China's seat in the United Nations" refers to China the nation) by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and the Republic of China (which had lost mainland China and was limited to Taiwan since 1949) soon lost membership in all UN organs. In 1991, Russia acquired the seat originally held by the Soviet Union, including the Soviet Union's former representation in the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Security Council are the only nations recognized as possessing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although it lacks universal validity, as some nuclear nations have not signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body. India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty. In 2004, four of the five permanent members were also the world's top four weapons exporters when measured by arms value; China was seventh. Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any substantive resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however a "nay" vote from a permanent member blocks the passage of the resolution in question. The Permanent Representatives of the U.N. Security Council permanent members are Wang Guangya, Jean-Marc de La Sablière, Vitaly I. Churkin, and Sir Emyr Jones Parry, and John R. Bolton.[1] Bolton, facing difficulty in the nomination process from the now-Democratic US Senate, resigned in December 2006; he is temporarily replaced by acting Ambassador Alejandro Daniel Wolff. Current United States Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad has been nominated to permanently replace Bolton. Elected members
Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms starting on 1 January, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African bloc chooses three members; the Latin America and the Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. Also, one of these members is an Arab country, alternately from the Asian or African bloc.[2] The current (2007) elected members, with the regions they were elected to represent and their Permanent Representatives, are:
Veto powerUnder article 27 of the UN Charter decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute— require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used five vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 81. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, the numbers have been: China, two; France, three; Russia/USSR, four; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 43. Procedural matters are not subject to a Security Council veto. This provision is important because it prevents the veto from being used to avoid discussion of an issue. There have been allegations that Russia might use the veto on the 3 April Security Council's session when the future of Kosovo, a Serbian province under UN-administration, will be decided. Status of non-membersA state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in matters that the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions or not depending on how they interpret the validity of the country's interest. Non-members are routinely invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council. Role of the Security Council
Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members. Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members. Image:Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell holds a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003 The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:
The United Nations has helped prevent many outbreaks of international violence from growing into wider conflicts. It has opened the way to negotiated settlements through its service as a center of debate and negotiation, as well as through UN-sponsored fact-finding missions, mediators, and truce observers. UN Peacekeeping forces, comprised of troops and equipment supplied by member nations, have usually been able to limit or prevent conflict, although sometimes not. Some conflicts, however, have proven to be beyond the capacity of the UN to influence. Key to the success of UN peacekeeping efforts is the willingness of the parties to a conflict to come to terms peacefully through a viable political process. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court grants the Security Council the power to refer cases to the Court, where the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.[3] The Council exercised this power for the first time in March 2005, when it referred to the Court “the situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002”;[4] since Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court could not otherwise have exercised jurisdiction. Australia and New Zealand have called on the Council to refer Robert Mugabe's alleged crimes to the International Criminal Court.[citation needed] ResolutionsThe legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. The International Court of Justice suggested in the Namibia case that resolutions other than those made under Chapter VI can also be binding,[5] a view that some Member States have questioned. Others have asserted that Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding, but may contain binding sections.[6] It is beyond doubt however that those resolutions made outside these two Chapters dealing with the internal governance of the organization (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding, where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them. If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding Presidential Statement instead of a Resolution. They are adopted by consensus but often require similar behind-closed-doors wrangling. They are meant to apply political pressure, a warning that the council is paying attention and further action may follow. Press statements typically accompany both resolutions and Presidential Statements, carrying the text of the document adopted by the body and also some explanatory text. They may also be released independently, after a significant meeting. Membership reformImage:G4countries.PNG The G4 nations (India, Germany, Japan and Brazil) support each other’s bid for permanent seats on the Security Council. There has been discussion of an increase in the number of permanent members. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. Indeed, Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders, respectively, while Brazil, the largest South American nation, and India, the world's second most populous country, are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. This project has found opposition in a group of countries called Uniting for Consensus. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked a team of advisors to come up with recommendations for revamping the United Nations by the end of 2004. A proposed solution is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Brazil, Germany, India, Japan (known as the G4 nations), one seat from Africa (most likely between Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa) and/or one seat from the Arab League [3]. On 21 September 2004, the G4 nations issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with an African country. France and the United Kingdom declared that they support this claim. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the General Assembly (128 votes). Criticisms of the Security CouncilThere have been criticisms that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (who are all nuclear powers) have created an exclusive nuclear club whose powers are unchecked. The lack of true international representation in the United Nations Security Council, as exists in the General Assembly, has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions. For example, take the eagerness to protect oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 compared to the lack of enthusiasm to protect resource-poor Rwandans in 1994.[7] Non-nuclear countries can be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested this is inadequate. Critics have suggested that expanding the number of permanent members to include non-nuclear powers would democratize the organization. [4]. Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether; under the government of Paul Martin, Canada advocated this approach.[8] Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, one veto from any of the "Big Five" (Russia, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and France) can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN armed or diplomatic response to a crisis. For instance, "Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members."[9] Other critics and even proponents of the Security Council question its effectiveness and relevance because in most high profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. The most prominent and dramatic example of this became the Darfur crisis, in which Arab Janjaweed militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population thus far killing an estimate of 300 000 civilians in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the U.N. has continuously failed to act against this severe and ongoing human rights issue. Another such case occurred in the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosnian Muslims in the largest case of mass murder upon the European continent since World War II. Srebrenica had been declared a U.N. "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the U.N. forces did nothing to prevent the massacre. [dubious — see talk page] Other critics object to the idea that the U.N. is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. In popular cultureThe Interpreter is a 2005 film featuring a fictional African head of state, apparently based on Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, seeking to avoid being indicted by the UN Security Council for trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of crimes against humanity. Australia, New Zealand, and international human rights organizations have backed the call for Mugabe's indictment. As Zimbabwe is a non-signatory of the ICC statute, an ICC trial requires either a UN Security Council indictment, or for Zimbabwe to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction. Lord of War is a 2005 film about arms dealing. The film includes a closing caption that while private arms dealers do profitable business the world over, they can come nowhere close to the arms dealings and revenue generated by national governments. The film states that the world's top five arms exporters are the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, and each of these nations are also permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. While the United States is indeed the largest weapons exporter in the world by far, the validity of this claim as applied to some of the other nations, has been actively debated (see Top Arms Exporters). Despite the possible inaccuracy, this suggests that arms dealing will not be dealt with as the five permanent members all agree it is in their best interests not to address it. See also
References
Sites |
Searched sites for "United Nations Security Council" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Submit
your site |
 |
|
Relevant quality search results and fast easy navigation throughout the
different sections of the site, make Americola.com |
