Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

UN Security Council veto power

Status
Not open for further replies.

PG1995

Active Member
Hi

I'm trying to understand the rationale for the veto power vested in P5 - five super powers of the world, namely, Russia, China, USA, UK, France. If any one of the these P5 veto (or, vote against) a resolution, then that resolution cannot be passed or adopted. To me, it's a kind of hegemony and totally undemocratic, oligarchic policy. Please let me know your opinion on this. Thank you.
 
All nations must meet a unanimous decision, otherwise back to the discussion table. A veto does not mean the end of a discussion, only it must be rediscussed until all parties come to a mutual agreement that satisfies all parties. To do otherwise would create a possible breakdown of a unity. Well that is my take.
 
Last edited:
The birth and setup of the UN must be seen in the historical contex of the tumultuos time after WW2. The powers to defeat Germany and Japan formed a club, sort of like the League of Nations after WW1 (that did not work all that well eather) before. As anyone of the 5 powers has the ability to veto a motion they can't even dissolve the club! I guess any of the 5 could just take it's marbels and leave....fat chance! E
 
From wikipedia.
The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members. The expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in December 1939, following its November 1939 attack on Finland soon after the outbreak of World War II, was just one of many events in the League's long history of incomplete membership.

Seems logical enough.
 
To me, it's a kind of hegemony and totally undemocratic, oligarchic policy. Please let me know your opinion on this. Thank you.

I agree.

Screw the UN! The USA is a Republic that should never have ceded any sovereignty to any global body or any other Nation beyond our own native peoples. Roosevelt and Truman were in grievous error, along with the Congress that ratified the Bretton Woods Agreement and the UN Charter.

Get US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US!

My humble opinion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top