Security Council

1951 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-742
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The United Kingdom

This issue covers the work of the Security Council from its 549th meeting on July 26 to its 558th meeting on September 1, 1951. During July the President of the Council was the representative of the United Kingdom, Sir Gladwyn Jebb; during August, Warren R. Austin, representative of the United States; and during September, Ales Bebler, representative of Yugoslavia. The 554th meeting and the 557th meetings, devoted to discussion of the Council's report to the General Assembly, were held in private. During debate on the Palestine question the representatives of Israel, Egypt and Iraq were invited to participate without vote in Council proceedings

Security Council

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-517
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Foreign Ministers

The question of the threat to Thailand was discussed by the Security Council at its 673d and 674th meetings. After again explaining the reasons for his government's belief that the condition of tension in the general region in which Thailand was located would, if continued, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, the Thai representative, Pote Sarasin, again requested that the Peace Observation Commission establish a sub-commission of from three to five members to dispatch observers to Thailand and to visit Thailand itself if it were deemed necessary. The Thai draft differed from earlier Thai proposals, however, in that the original mandate of the sub-commission applie only to the territory of Thailand; if the sub-commission felt that it could not adequately accomplish its mission without observation or visit in states contiguous to Thailand, the Peace Observation Commission or the Security Council could issue the necessary instructions. Representatives of New Zealand, Turkey, Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, Colombia and France spoke in support of the Thai draft. They denied, as had been alleged by the Soviet representative (Tsarapkin) at an earlier meeting, that Council consideration or action on this question would be detrimental to the success of the negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Chinese People's Republic, Soviet Union and other states in Geneva. While agreeing that it would be impropitious for the Council to consider directly the situation in Indochina as long as it was being discussed in Geneva, they argued that the question raised by Thailand was quite separate and that the Council had a duty to comply with the Thai request.

Peace-Keeping and Disarmament: A Report of the Discussions at the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament

1963 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan F. Neidle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Arab Republic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
General Assembly Resolution

Pursuant to agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States, endorsed by General Assembly resolution of December 20, 1961, representatives of the following countries took part in the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament: Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Rumania, Sweden, the Soviet Union, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom and the United States.

China will stymie India’s UN Security Council agenda

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Stringent Selection ◽  
Selection Of

Significance The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are the body’s five permanent members. India wants to join that group. Impacts India-China border tensions could surge in early 2021, worsening bilateral relations. Delhi will deepen security ties with Washington and its other partners in the ‘Quad’ grouping, Tokyo and Canberra. India will push for more stringent selection of UN peacekeepers.

Conflict Resolution in Southern Africa: Why Namibia is not Another Zimbabwe

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 37-45
Author(s):  
David F. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The U.S

Despite continued American insistence that a negotiating impasse had not been reached, by the final months of 1982 it seemed clear that internationally-recognized independence for Namibia would not soon be achieved. While Washington claimed that negotiations between South Africa, Angola, and the Southwest African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) (with the U.S. as mediator) remain meaningful, there appears to have been a decisive move away from settlement. The latest round of negotiations, spearheaded by the United States as the leading element of the Western Contact Group (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and Canada), has attempted to move South African-controlled Namibia to independence on the basis of Security Council Resolution 435 of September 1978.

General Assembly

1953 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 511-530
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Productive Capacity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The United Nations

Report of the Agent General of the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency: Addendum covering the period February 15–June 30, 1953: On July 23, 1953, the Agent-General of the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency transmitted to the seventh session of the General Assembly a report covering the period February 15–June 30, 1953. The Agent-General (John B. Coulter) noted that the planned expenditure of the $70 million program included approximately 59.5 percent for projects for the rehabilitation of productive capacity and 29 percent for sustaining commodity imports. In addition to the $43,828,954 available as of February 15, 1953, UNKRA had received $26,714,236 during the period reviewed; this included $15,750,000 from the United States, $7,840,000 from the United Kingdom and $1,330,733 from Australia. Of the total of $71,793,190 available at the end of June, $1,745,123 had been offered in kind. During the period reviewed, $3,590,205 had been expended, leaving a balance of $66,457,826 available for the $70 million program. Of that amount, $54.4 million had been allotted to firm and agreed projects

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.

The penholder system and the rule of law in the Security Council decision-making: Setback or improvement?

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-156
Author(s):  
Marie-Eve Loiselle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Council Decision

AbstractThis article analyses the decision-making process of the UN Security Council when it adopts outcome documents, such as resolutions, Presidential statements and press statements. It is commonly assumed that because of their veto power and permanency China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have greater influence than their elected counterparts in shaping those outcomes. In recent years, that control has been strengthened by the penholdership system. Under this practice, one or more members, usually France, the United States or the United Kingdom (P3), take leadership over a situation on the agenda of the Council. When ‘holding the pen’ a member often decides what action the Council should take, then drafts an outcome document that it negotiates with other permanent members before sharing the text with elected members. This article explores the development of this practice and its impact on the respect for the rule of law in the Security Council’s decision-making process. It argues that, while concentrating power in the hands of the P3, hence diminishing transparency and the opportunity for all members to participate in the decision-making of the Council, at the same time the penholdership system also provides an avenue to strengthen elected members’ influence in ways that promote respect for the international rule of law.

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.

General Assembly

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-105
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Vice Presidents ◽  
Santa Cruz ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Fourth Session

The fourth session of the General Assembly met at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows from September 20 to December 10, 1949. General Carlos P. Romulo (Philippines) was elected president for the session on the Assembly's first ballot, receiving 53 votes to 5 for Vladimir Clementis (Czechoslovakia). The heads of delegations of Brazil, China, France, Pakistan, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States were elected as vice presidents, and the following chairmen of the six main committees were chosen: political and security committee, Lester Pearson (Canada); economic and financial committee, Hernan Santa Cruz (Chile); social, cultural and humanitarian committee, Carlos Eduardo Stolk (Venezuela); trusteeship committee, Hermod Lanning (Denmark); administrative and budgetary committee, Alexei Kyrou (Greece); and legal committee, Manfred Lachs (Poland)

The Iraq Crisis: What Now?

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaughan Lowe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

Much ink has been spilled over the question of the legality of the invasion of Iraq and of the extraordinary claims to a right to override ‘unreasonable’ uses of veto in the Security Council. That invasion has taken place, and as the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from the Security Council the draft resoluation that would have expressly authorised that invasion, there was no occasion to override any veto that might have been cast against such a resolution had it been put to the Council. Writing while fighting in Iraq is still processding, it is both too late and too early to consider those questions of legality in great detail: too late to have any practical value; and perhaps too early for the measured appraisal of the situation that will be needed in due course. I want instead to address a slightly different question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document