Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:32:02.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolutions and vetoes in the UN Security Council: their relevance and significance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Sally Morphet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to look at the United Nations Security Council and certain of the 646 resolutions and 232 public vetoes (vetoing 192 draft resolutions) cast between 1946 and the end of 1989, and to discover in what ways both it and they have been legally and politically relevant and significant. Security Council resolutions are, of course, passed by majority vote. This had to be 7 out of 11 votes until the end of 1965 when the Council was enlarged from 11 to 15. Security Council resolutions have had since then to be passed by at least 9 votes: these can only be vetoed by the five Permanent Members (the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China) if the resolution would otherwise have been passed. By the end of 1989 the veto total for each Permanent Member (the Peoples Republic of China took over the China seat in 1971) was as follows: Soviet Union 114; United States 67; United Kingdom 30; France 18 and China 3.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 341 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Finkelstein, L. (ed.), Politics in the United Nations System (New York, 1988), p. 19.Google Scholar

2 Roberts, A. and Kingsbury, B. (eds.), United Nations, Divided World (Oxford, 1988), p. 27.Google Scholar

3 Dore, I., ‘Self-determination of Namibia and the United Nations: Paradigm of a Paradox’, Harvard International Law Journal (Winter 1986), p. 181.Google Scholar

4 Urquhart, B., A Life in Peace and War (London, 1987), p. 347.Google Scholar

5 Urquhart, . A Life in Peace and War, p. 193.Google Scholar

6 Roberts, and Kingsbury, (eds.), United Nations, Divided World, pp. 66–68.Google Scholar

7 Urquhart, B., ‘The Role of the United Nations in Maintaining and Improving International Peace and Security’, Survival (09–10 1986), pp. 390–391.Google Scholar

8 Beitz, C., ‘Recent International Thought’, International Journal (Spring 1988), p. 202.Google Scholar

9 Urquhart, , A Life in Peace and War, pp. 220–221.Google Scholar

10 Bull, H. (ed.), The Expansion of International Society, (Oxford, 1984), p. 8.Google Scholar

11 Urquhart, , A Life in Peace and War, p. 106.Google Scholar

12 Russell, R., A History of the United Nations Charter, (Washington D.C., 1958), p. 961.Google Scholar

13 Bailey, S., The Procedure of the UN Security Council, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1988), pp. 264–265.Google Scholar

14 Russell, , History of the UN Charter, p. 964.Google Scholar

15 Bailey, S., Procedure of the UN Security Council, p. 232.Google Scholar

16 Rubinstein, A., Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned World, (Princeton, 1970), p. 33.Google Scholar

17 Urquhart, B., ‘International Peace and Security: Thoughts on the Twentieth Anniversary of Dag Hammarskjold's Death’, Foreign Affairs (Fall 1981), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

18 Jackson, R. L., The Non-Aligned, The UN and The Super Powers (New York, 1983), p. 113.Google Scholar

19 Legum, C., ‘The United Nations and Southern Africa’, (University of Sussex, 1971), p. 40.Google Scholar

20 Jackson, , The Non-Aligned, p. 124.Google Scholar

21 Jackson, , The Non-Aligned, p. 129.Google Scholar

22 Dore, , ‘Self-determination of Namibia’, p. 160.Google Scholar

23 Dore, , ‘Self-determination of Namibia’, p. 184Google Scholar

24 Finkelstein, (ed.), The United Nations System, p. 451.Google Scholar