Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: longtermmemmory
I'm getting to this thread really late. I still have to read this thread, and please forgive me if this has been said, but there are provisions provided for the exact situation we are up against. So, I will read all 200+ comments and hope this has been brought up.

Here's my research which found the following:

UN Security Council, General Assembly United for Peace Loophole!

Long ago, the members of the United Nations recognized that such impasses would occur in the Security Council. They set up a procedure for insuring that such stalemates would not prevent the United Nations from carrying out its mission to “maintain international peace and security.” In 1950, the United Nations by an almost unanimous vote adopted Resolution 377, the wonderfully named “Uniting for Peace.” The United States played an important role in that resolutions adoption, concerned about the possibilities of vetoes by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Uniting for Peace provides that if, because of the lack of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council (France, China, Russia, Britain, United States), the Council cannot maintain international peace where there is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression,” the General Assembly “shall consider the matter immediately….” The General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to “maintain or restore international peace and security.”

207 posted on 03/15/2003 7:34:43 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Indy Pendance
I'm reading all this late too, but here's what got me.... the quote

"I've done a lot of work with international law and with the U.N.," he said, "and we're always interested in figuring out ways to make the U.N. more important."

"More important?" How about more functional? How about more reasonable? How about still recognizing the sovereinty of each country? How about "no vetos" before a resolution is submitted? Geeshhhhhhh
216 posted on 03/15/2003 8:37:13 PM PST by bart99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson