Action to Be Taken in Connection with OAS Decision

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-593
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Deputy Minister ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Actual Use ◽  
Draft Resolution

From its 893d through its 895th meetings the Security Council considered, with a view to determining its own course of action in that connection, the decision of the Organization of American States (OAS) taken on August 26, 1960, to apply limited sanctions against the Dominican Republic for acts of aggression in Venezuela. In addition to the Final Act of the OAS meeting communicating the decision, the Council had before it the following items: I) a letter from the First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union requesting consideration of the decision by the Council; 2) a draft resolution, sponsored by Argentina, Ecuador, and the United States, taking note of the report and resolution of OAS; and 3) a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union approving the decision of OAS. In pointing out that Article 53 of the UN Charter provided for the authorization of the Security Council as a prerequisite to enforcement action by regional agencies, Mr. Kuznetsov (Soviet Union), the opening speaker, declared it to be the duty of the Council to approve the decision of OAS, thereby imparting legal force to it. In reply, the Argentine delegate, Mr. Amadeo, expressed doubts concerning the Soviet interpretation of Article 53, pointing to arguments in support of the idea that measures taken on a regional basis were subject to ratification by the Security Council only if they entailed the actual use of armed force. Mr. Wadsworth (United States) concurred in rejection of the Soviet contention, and the following speaker, Mr. Correa (Ecuador), in discussing the possibilities of interpretation of Article 53, urged the retention of flexibility in relations between the Security Council and regional agencies, in order to allow effective action for the maintenance of international peace and security without the necessity of bringing all such questions of a regional nature before the world forum.

Question of New Aggressive Acts by the United States Air Force Against the Soviet Union

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 578-579
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United States Air Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
The Government

From its 880th through its 883d meetings the Security Council considered the charge by the Soviet Union that the United States had, through aggressive acts committed by its Air Force against the Soviet Union, created a threat to universal peace. Mr. Kuznetsov (Soviet Union) was the first speaker. Noting that it had been a mere two months since the Council had last debated the aggressive actions of the United States in a similar situation, he indicated that members of the Council were aware of the fact that on July 1, 1960, an RB–47 six-engined armed bomber reconnaissance aircraft of the United States Air Force had violated the state border of the Soviet Union, whereupon it had been shot down, two of the crew members subsequently being picked up in Soviet territorial waters. It seemed clear, he continued, that there had been no substance to the promise of the United States President to suspend flights of United States aircraft over Soviet territory; moreover, those allies of the United States which allowed the latter to use bases on their territory “for aggressive purposes against the Soviet Union" must be considered accomplices of the United States in these aggressive acts. Believing it necessary for the Security Council to take measures to make the United States stop provocative actions against other countries, Mr. Kuznetsov presented a draft resolution” to the Council, whereby it would condemn the violations of the sovereign rights of other states by the United States Air Force and regard them as aggressive acts, and would, further, insist that the government of the United States take immediate steps to put an end to such acts and to prevent their recurrence.

Security Council

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
States Government

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

Amendments to the Charter of the United Nations

1966 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-431
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Social Council ◽  
The United Nations

Amendments to Articles 23, 27, and 61 of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on December 17, 1963, came into force on August 31, 1965. The amendment to Article 23 enlarges the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen. The amended Article 27 provides that decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters be made by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven) and on all other matters by an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven), including the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The amendment to Article 61 enlarges the membership of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) from eighteen to 27.

3. Facing wars, confronting threats: the UN Security Council in action

2015 ◽  
pp. 50-70
Author(s):  
Jussi M. Hanhimäki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Conflict ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The World ◽  
World War Iii

There has not been a World War III, so has the United Nations been successful? Alternatively, no day has gone by since 1945 without a military conflict somewhere around the world, so has the UN been unsuccessful? ‘Facing wars, confronting threats: the UN Security Council in action’ considers whether the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons has acted as a deterrent against a direct military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Security Council is not irrelevant, but it can only be effective when the five permanent members (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States) are in agreement. Despite this, the UN has been remarkably successful and active.

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

1990 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Morphet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

IntroductionThe 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.

Security Council

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-500
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
New Members ◽  
Independent State ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Republic

Application of the Republic of Korea: The report of the Committee on the Admission of New Members concerning the application of the Republic of Korea for admission to the United Nations was considered at the 423rd meeting of the Council on April 8, 1949. Attacked by the Soviet and Ukrainian representatives as a puppet regime illegally established by the intervention of an illegally constituted Interim Committee of the Assembly, the Republic of Korea was strongly defended by the representatives of the United States, China and Argentina as an independent state willing and able to assume the obligations of membership. The vote on the Chinese resolution to recommend the admission of Korea recorded nine members in the affirmative, with the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR in the negative. The resolution therefore failed to pass because of the negative vote of the Soviet Union.

General Assembly

1958 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-503 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Special Session ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Special General

The third emergency special session of the General Assembly, summoned by the Secretary-Generall in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Security Council at its 838th meeting on August 7, 1958, 2 was held from August 8 through August 21, 1958 (732d–746th plenary meetings). Following the adoption of the provisional agenda,3 the Soviet delegate, Mr. Sobolev, opened the discussion, urging that the General Assembly take steps to ensure the immediate withdrawal of the United States troops from Lebanon and the United Kingdomforces from Jordan because their presence constituted a permanent threat to the peace and security of the peoples and was a violation of the UN Charter. Mr. Lodge (United States) replied to Mr. Sobolev's statement, saying that the Soviet Union, in calling for a special General Assembly session, sought to attack the United States, but that this was not the purpose of the Security Council in voting for the United States resolution under which the session of the General Assembly was being held. The aim of the United States in introducing its resolution was to promote a chance for constructive action on the Middle East.

Utopias of One

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Kotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World War I ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The Soviet Union

This book is a new account of utopian writing. It examines how eight writers—Henry David Thoreau, W. E. B. Du Bois, Osip and Nadezhda Mandel'shtam, Anna Akhmatova, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, and J. H. Prynne—construct utopias of one within and against modernity's two large-scale attempts to harmonize individual and collective interests: liberalism and communism. The book begins in the United States between the buildup to the Civil War and the end of Jim Crow; continues in the Soviet Union between Stalinism and the late Soviet period; and concludes in England and the United States between World War I and the end of the Cold War. In this way it captures how writers from disparate geopolitical contexts resist state and normative power to construct perfect worlds—for themselves alone. The book contributes to debates about literature and politics, presenting innovative arguments about aesthetic difficulty, personal autonomy, and complicity and dissent. It models a new approach to transnational and comparative scholarship, combining original research in English and Russian to illuminate more than a century and a half of literary and political history.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document