The Practice of Voluntary Abstentions by Permanent Members of the Security Council Under Article 27, Paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 737-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantin A. Stavropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Petroleum Products ◽  
Early Years ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Multilateral Treaty

A question which was much discussed in legal literature in the early years of the United Nations, and which has been cited as a classic example of the effect of subsequent practice upon a provision in a multilateral treaty, has recently been raised again. This concerns the interpretation of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, which deals with voting in the Security Council on non-procedural matters. Both Portugal and South Africa last year reserved the position of their governments regarding the validity of Security Council Eesolution 221 of April 9, 1966, in the vote on which both France and the Soviet Union abstained. This is the resolution by which the Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, called for certain measures to enforce an embargo on oil and petroleum products from reaching Southern Ehodesia through the port of Beira in Mozambique, and authorized the United Kingdom to prevent by the use of force, if necessary, the arrival at Beira of vessels reasonably believed to be carrying oil destined for Rhodesia.

IV. Collective Enforcement of Peace and Security

1945 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 970-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
William T. R. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The Security Council of the United Nations will, from the first day of its existence, include in its membership all of the great powers. The Council, backed by the united will of the five powers with permanent seats in that body, will act, if it acts at all, with an authority which no organ of the League of Nations ever possessed. In the League Council, there was no time during which all of the great powers participated. Only two of them, France and the United Kingdom, were League members throughout its period of activity. Some may believe that too high a price, or a higher price than was necessary, was paid to insure the participation of the Five Powers, and especially the United States and the Soviet Union, in the United Nations Organization. The price was paid largely in provisions of its Charter relative to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security which circumscribe carefully the situations in which the Security Council can take action.

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.

Origins of the United Nations

2018 ◽  
pp. 40-58
Author(s):  
Justin Morris
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
World Organization

This chapter analyzes the transformational journey that plans for the United Nations undertook from summer 1941 to the San Francisco Conference of 1945 at which the UN Charter was agreed. Prior to the conference, the ‘Big Three’ great powers of the day—the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom—often struggled to establish the common ground on which the UN’s success would depend. However, their debates were only the start of the diplomatic travails which would eventually lead to the establishment of the world organization that we know today. Once gathered at San Francisco, the fifty delegations spent the next two months locked in debate over issues such as the role of international law; the relationship between the General Assembly and Security Council; the permanent members’ veto; and Charter amendment. One of modern history’s most important diplomatic events, its outcome continues to resonate through world politics.

Intervention, 1956

1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Military Interventions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Military

The military interventions initiated by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France in Egypt and by the Soviet Union in Hungary, during October and November, 1956, have different historical backgrounds and different political purposes. They may have been politically connected with one another, and in any case they were connected by the fact that they occurred at the same time and were all dealt with by the United Nations. It is the purpose of this article to examine the legal justification for these interventions with only the minimum historical background necessary for that purpose. The criteria for aggression which the writer developed in the July, 1956, number of this Journal will be assumed and for their justification the reader is referred to that article.

Secretariat

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-474
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Nationalist Government ◽  
Foreign Ministers

Activities of the Secretary-General: On March 21, 1950, the Secretary-General (Lie), in an address delivered at the triennial dinner of B'nai B'rith in Washington, D.C., called for a twenty-year program of peace within the framework of the United Nations. After referring to the difficulties arising from the non-participation of the Soviet Union in United Nations organs because of the presence of the representative of the Nationalist government of China, Mr. Lie suggested that negotiation between the major powers was possible if the Security Council would hold the “periodic meetings” referred to in Article 28(2) of the Charter, in which the various Members would be represented by either the heads of states or the foreign ministers.

The Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967—Its Legal Nature and Implications

1969 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amos Shapira
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Theoretical Inquiry ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The United Nations

More than a year has passed since the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, concerning the “grave situation in the Middle East”. On the basis of this resolution, the Secretary-General of the United Nations designated Ambassador Gunnar Jarring as a Special Representative “to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement…” It is not proposed here to analyze all the political and diplomatic aspects of the Resolution or its practical prospects to bring about peace in the Middle East. Nor is it proposed to advance any particular interpretation of its substantive contents or to assess its merits and shortcomings. The sole purpose of this article is to examine the legal nature and implications of the Resolution within the framework of the United Nations Charter.Intellectual curiosity and academic research are not the only motivations for this legal inquiry. Sceptics of the political relevance of such “theoretical” inquiry need only obtain the November 24, 1968 issue of Pravda, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

http://habibiaislamicus.com/index.php/hirj/article/view/192

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Mamnoon Ahmad Khan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Jammu And Kashmir ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Western Block ◽  
The United Nations

This research paper examines the attitude of People’s Republic of China towards Kashmir conflict. Chinese leaders have been evolving their own strategy towards the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Chinese concentration was focused basically to oppose the United States and the United Kingdom in the United Nations. Even when the Soviet Union began to favour the Indian stand, China remained neutral. China cooperated with Pakistan in every field including the Kashmir issue but the United States, Soviet Union and the Western block opposed Chinese efforts in the United Nations. That’s why China remained unsuccessful in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

New States in the Indian Realm

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-463
Author(s):  
Russell H. Fifield
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
New States ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International Boundaries

The rise of new states in the Indian realm is an outstanding development of the postwar era. India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon have gained independence, and Nepal in the Himalayas is emerging from isolation. The United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union have extended diplomatic recognition to some or all of the five states of the Indian realm. India, Pakistan, and Burma are now Members of the United Nations, but the applications of Ceylon and Nepal have been vetoed by the Soviet Union. Another consequence of the emergence of new states in the Indian realm is the creation of complex international boundaries with subsequent territorial disputes for the agenda of the Security Council of the United Nations.

scholarly journals The Afghan question in the work of SC & GA of UNO in January, 1980

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Oleksandr L. Kovalkov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Government

In December, 1979 sub-units of the Soviet Army invaded the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, eliminated Hafizullah Amin from power, established the government of Babrak Karmal and occupied the country. These events caused the condemnation of the international community, that were reflected by the statement on the Afghan question in the agenda of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly in January, 1980. The minute-books of SC of the UNO, as well as the UN General Assembly resolutions are the main sources of research of this problem. The discussion of the Afghan question in the UN Security Council lasted from 5 to 7 January, 1980, involving 42 countries. The USSR Representative to the United Nations O. Troyanovskyi and Foreign Minister of DRA Sh. M. Dost tried to persuade all those present that Soviet troops had been brought to Afghanistan at the invitation of a legitimate Afghan government to repulse allegedly externally-aggressive aggression. Herewith they referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter and Article 4 of the Treaty of Friendship, Neighborhood and Cooperation between the USSR and the DPA. Most of the delegations (primarily the US delegation, Pakistan, the Chinese People’s Republic, Great Britain) rejected the arguments of the Soviet and Afghan sides and condemned Soviet aggression and called for the withdrawal of troops from the territory of Afghanistan immediately. The Soviet Union and the DRA were supported only by a few delegations of Soviet satellites (Poland, the GDR, Hungary, the Mongolian People’s Republic, Laos and Vietnam). But during the vote on the anti-Soviet resolution on January 7, 1980, the USSR expected vetoed it. After that, the consideration of the «Afghan question» was postponed to the General Assembly, where 108 countries condemned the Soviet aggression on January, 14 (18 countries abstained, the same number supported the USSR). The discussion of the «Afghan question» at the United Nations Organization in January, 1980 assured that the Soviet Union had suffered a loud defeat in the international arena, its authority was severely undermined. This was also confirmed by the end of the policy of "discharging" and the subsequent eruption of the Cold War in international relations. In addition, the consideration of the Afghan question at the UNO has shown the lack of a mechanism for influencing an aggressor country that has a veto power in the UN Security Council. The USSR was expected to veto the Security Council resolution, and the decisions of the General Assembly were recommendatory. This is particularly relevant in terms of the current UN crisis in deterring the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation, the DPRK, Syria and others like that.

The Changing United Nations Constitutionalism. New Arenas and New Techniques for International Law-Making

1967 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 68-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward McWhinney
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Soviet Bloc ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Multilateral Treaty

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the World Court on July 20, 1962, concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations has become a political cause célèbre in so far as the majority judicial position in it was backed up by the Western-sponsored action, in terms of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, to deprive the Soviet Union and France of their vote in the General Assembly. The Advisory Opinion of the World Court has, however, its own intrinsic interest in terms of juristic method and of basic Soviet and Western differences in scientific approach to law. In his dissenting, judicial opinion in that case, the then President of the Court, the Polish jurist, Judge Winiarski, formulated principles of interpretation which reveal, very dramatically, the basic doctrinal differences between Soviet bloc and Western jurists as to the nature and character of the Charter. As President Winiarski commented:The Charter has set forth the purposes of the United Nations in very wide, and for that reason too indefinite, terms. But… it does not follow, far from it, that the Organisation is entitled to seek to achieve those purposes by no matter what means. The fact that an organ of the United Nations is seeking to achieve one of those purposes does not suffice to render its action lawful. The Charter, a multilateral treaty which was the result of prolonged and laborious negotiations, carefully created organs and determined their competence and means of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document