Reasons why the veto should be removed from the United Nations Security Council
- Authors: Nel, Lauren Jessica
- Date: 2014-06-04
- Subjects: United Nations. Security Council - Rules and practice , United Nations. Security Council - Voting , Veto
- Type: Thesis
- Identifier: uj:11385 , http://hdl.handle.net/10210/11023
- Description: LL.M. (International Law) , Syria is currently embroiled in a bitter and bloody conflict which began three years ago, in the prime of what was commonly known as the Arab spring. The Syrian people clamoured for new leadership and greater freedoms. However, the hopes of an Arab spring soon faded into a cold, desolate Arab winter. Instead of acceding to the demands of the citizens, the Syrian president has sought to subdue and eliminate them. Resulting in August 2013 of the government forces reportedly unleashed deadly chemical weapons on opposition forces. The United Nations Security Council failed to embark on any action by this point, due to the first veto by Russia and China on 4 October 20113. The death toll subsequently peaked at over 100 000. Whilst on the 24th of November, 2013 following two days of conflict in the Eastern Ghouta region of Syria 160 people were killed. Could the devastation of Syria and its people have been avoided? Is there any organisation responsible for the safety and protection of the Syrian people? The answer lies in an organisation called the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council however has the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security but this is not exclusive. Their primary function (as clearly stated in the United Nations Charter) is the responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security.
- Full Text:
- Authors: Nel, Lauren Jessica
- Date: 2014-06-04
- Subjects: United Nations. Security Council - Rules and practice , United Nations. Security Council - Voting , Veto
- Type: Thesis
- Identifier: uj:11385 , http://hdl.handle.net/10210/11023
- Description: LL.M. (International Law) , Syria is currently embroiled in a bitter and bloody conflict which began three years ago, in the prime of what was commonly known as the Arab spring. The Syrian people clamoured for new leadership and greater freedoms. However, the hopes of an Arab spring soon faded into a cold, desolate Arab winter. Instead of acceding to the demands of the citizens, the Syrian president has sought to subdue and eliminate them. Resulting in August 2013 of the government forces reportedly unleashed deadly chemical weapons on opposition forces. The United Nations Security Council failed to embark on any action by this point, due to the first veto by Russia and China on 4 October 20113. The death toll subsequently peaked at over 100 000. Whilst on the 24th of November, 2013 following two days of conflict in the Eastern Ghouta region of Syria 160 people were killed. Could the devastation of Syria and its people have been avoided? Is there any organisation responsible for the safety and protection of the Syrian people? The answer lies in an organisation called the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council however has the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security but this is not exclusive. Their primary function (as clearly stated in the United Nations Charter) is the responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security.
- Full Text:
BRICS voting behaviour in the United Nations security council in 2011: cohesion or divergence?
- Authors: Barnard, Sharlene
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: BRIC countries , United Nations. Security Council - Voting , Security, International - Africa - International cooperation
- Language: English
- Type: Masters (Thesis)
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10210/296193 , uj:32267
- Description: Abstract: The study places on record BRICS’ voting data from 2011 on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) related to issues of peace and security. It investigates the cohesion in terms of BRICS’ voting behaviour on the UNSC during 2011, when all BRICS member states held a seat on the Council concurrently either by virtue of a permanent member seat (China and Russia) or a non-permanent member seat (Brazil, India and South Africa). The study additionally investigates the cohesion in terms of individual BRICS member states’ declared foreign policy and that of the objective of the BRICS grouping affirmed under the grouping’s ‘annual summit declarations’. The voting data and related explanations are drawn from the United Nations Bibliographical Information System (UNBISnet) and the United Nations Media Coverage and Press Releases portal – two main databases concerning voting records in the UN and found in the Dag Hammarskjold online library. Using Graham’s three-step model of voting behaviour (discussed in Chapter Two), the study traces each BRICS member state’s declared foreign policy in 2011 in the first step, along with the objectives of the BRICS grouping (Chapter Three); the voting actions of BRICS member states on 58 UNSC resolutions related to peace and security during 2011 in the second step (Chapter Three); and the explanations and interpretations of the voting actions in the final step (Chapter Four). By organising the data in the above manner, the study intends to examine the voting behaviour of BRICS member states during 2011 on the UNSC more manageably. The model is applied to resolutions relating to international peace and security tabled at the UNSC during 2011. A table is also used to assess whether the voting actions of individual BRICS member states portray cohesion or divergence within BRICS. In summary, therefore, the grouping’s voting behaviour is analysed concerning issues of peace and security resolutions tabled at the UNSC during 2011. The study concludes that in 2011 there was cohesion between the individual declared foreign policies of BRICS member states, between the declared foreign policies of BRICS member states and the objectives of the BRICS grouping; and more significantly cohesion in the voting actions of BRICS member states on the UNSC. The grouping portrayed cohesion on over 96 per cent of the votes on peace and security. It is evident that the BRICS grouping portrayed divergence on two of the 58 resolutions under question, specifically on the situation in Libya and ‘Peace and Security in Africa’, concerning the situation in Eritrea. This could be attributed to the fact that 2011 was the first time that the BRICS grouping all held a concurrent seat on the UNSC, and the first time that the grouping was presented with the opportunity to cooperate on issues of peace and security, on a multilateral platform, such as the UNSC. Overall BRICS demonstrated a commitment to international peace and security and multilateralism, in its voting behaviour at the UNSC in 2011. , M.A. (Politics)
- Full Text:
- Authors: Barnard, Sharlene
- Date: 2018
- Subjects: BRIC countries , United Nations. Security Council - Voting , Security, International - Africa - International cooperation
- Language: English
- Type: Masters (Thesis)
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10210/296193 , uj:32267
- Description: Abstract: The study places on record BRICS’ voting data from 2011 on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) related to issues of peace and security. It investigates the cohesion in terms of BRICS’ voting behaviour on the UNSC during 2011, when all BRICS member states held a seat on the Council concurrently either by virtue of a permanent member seat (China and Russia) or a non-permanent member seat (Brazil, India and South Africa). The study additionally investigates the cohesion in terms of individual BRICS member states’ declared foreign policy and that of the objective of the BRICS grouping affirmed under the grouping’s ‘annual summit declarations’. The voting data and related explanations are drawn from the United Nations Bibliographical Information System (UNBISnet) and the United Nations Media Coverage and Press Releases portal – two main databases concerning voting records in the UN and found in the Dag Hammarskjold online library. Using Graham’s three-step model of voting behaviour (discussed in Chapter Two), the study traces each BRICS member state’s declared foreign policy in 2011 in the first step, along with the objectives of the BRICS grouping (Chapter Three); the voting actions of BRICS member states on 58 UNSC resolutions related to peace and security during 2011 in the second step (Chapter Three); and the explanations and interpretations of the voting actions in the final step (Chapter Four). By organising the data in the above manner, the study intends to examine the voting behaviour of BRICS member states during 2011 on the UNSC more manageably. The model is applied to resolutions relating to international peace and security tabled at the UNSC during 2011. A table is also used to assess whether the voting actions of individual BRICS member states portray cohesion or divergence within BRICS. In summary, therefore, the grouping’s voting behaviour is analysed concerning issues of peace and security resolutions tabled at the UNSC during 2011. The study concludes that in 2011 there was cohesion between the individual declared foreign policies of BRICS member states, between the declared foreign policies of BRICS member states and the objectives of the BRICS grouping; and more significantly cohesion in the voting actions of BRICS member states on the UNSC. The grouping portrayed cohesion on over 96 per cent of the votes on peace and security. It is evident that the BRICS grouping portrayed divergence on two of the 58 resolutions under question, specifically on the situation in Libya and ‘Peace and Security in Africa’, concerning the situation in Eritrea. This could be attributed to the fact that 2011 was the first time that the BRICS grouping all held a concurrent seat on the UNSC, and the first time that the grouping was presented with the opportunity to cooperate on issues of peace and security, on a multilateral platform, such as the UNSC. Overall BRICS demonstrated a commitment to international peace and security and multilateralism, in its voting behaviour at the UNSC in 2011. , M.A. (Politics)
- Full Text:
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »