Has it been a real vehicle of the promotion of international

cooperation?
The United Nations is the most important international organization for promoting
international cooperation and the maintenance of peace and security. What the United
Nations can do in response to the political, economic, and social realities of the world depends
largely on the will and cooperation of its members.

Dena talked about whether it can be consider moral or not, but I would focus on the structure
of the organisation and In this context, we need to examine how the principles underpinning
the UN interface with its institutional structure, a very controversial debate around this issue is
about the veto power that characterises the security council and whether it is contradictory
with the aim and values of the organization.

The UN was created with the intention to avoid a third world war and preserve world peace
and security as well as to recognize the sovereignty of states and give a voice to each state in
the General Assembly (GA).

The Security Council is one of the most important and powerful organ in the UN, among its
functions we can find the maintenance of international peace and security. It is form by 15
members, 10 countries which are elected periodically and 5 permanent members that have
veto power. These countries are: France, Russia, United States, China and United kingdom.
They were the winners of World War II and key players in the construction of the United
Nations and were expected to continue to play a key role in international politics. They entitled
themselves with such privileges on the ground that the council would not be able to enforce its
decisions unless there exists a consensus among the major powers.

Stalin remarked at Yalta in 1945 that “the main thing was to prevent quarrels in the future of
the three Great Powers [USA, Britain, and the USSR] and the task, therefore, was to secure
their unity for the future” His view was shared by President Roosevelt.

These five Great Powers agreed to maintain peace and security for the common good, but
especially, of course, when it was in their own interests.

According to Articles 2.3 and 2.4,

- states should peacefully settle disputes and the use of force is prohibited.

Under Article 39,

- the SC may decide on the use of force if there is a threat to peace, a breach of the
same, or an act of aggression.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, most of the world soon split in to two camps,
either under US or Soviet influence. Roosevelt’s vision of the Security Council as “a board of
directors of the world” with the responsibility to enforce “the peace against any potential
miscreant” collapsed. Each of the two superpowers focused on preserving order and stability
in its own sphere of influence. Superpower competition mainly came to surface in relation to
spheres of influence in the developing world, as well as in strategic areas, and often led to
proxy-war type conflicts in these regions.
During the Cold War, the SC passed 193 vetoes. The UN was ineffective at preventing conflict,
could not prevent the US invasion of Vietnam and the USSR invasions of Afghanistan and
Hungary for example.

The rigid structure of the Un wanted to maintain the status quo of the international world
order, the Security Council (SC) often found itself in a deadlock situation, unable to act
efficiently. Indeed, on several occasions it can be said that the SC was used as a tool of
superpower influence.

The use of the veto during the Cold War is a story of the pursuit of national interests.

Towards the end of the Cold War, there was a decline in the use of the veto which has
continued into the post-Cold War era. The UK and France last exercised their veto in 1989 (on
Panama). The US is now the most frequent user of the veto, the majority of which into the
Israel/Palestine situation.

The Russian Federation (as distinct from the USSR) comes in second with 11 vetoes – six of
which have been issued jointly with China. China has also used its veto (along with Russia) to
block a Security Council resolution condemning political repression in Myanmarr. China has
justified it is veto saying that it was a matter “internal affair of states”.

There is no doubt that the number of vetoes used at the Security Council has fallen since the
end of the Cold War, while the number of resolutions, in particular unanimous resolutions, has
grown exponentially over the same period, suggesting a co-operative and working Security
Council.

Yet the veto remains, and arguments continue as to how and when it is used. The debate has
evolved beyond national interests to include observing the spirit of the UN Charter, and
protecting the most vulnerable at times of humanitarian crisis.

A clear example of deadlock and ineffective response to a humanitarian crisis is the Syria
situation:

Between 4 October 2011 and 8 October 2016, five resolutions on the Near East and Syria were
submitted to the UN Security Council. Russia's veto cancels all resolutions, and on four
occasions it was supported by China. In 2017, Russia supported by China again used its veto
power after a draft resolution that would have helped ensure accountability for the use and
production of chemical weapons by all parties to the Syrian conflict.

10th March 2021: The Secretary-General said: "It is clear that if a war goes on for 10 years, the
system of international security governance that we have is not effective. And this is
something that should be food for thought for everyone involved"

The President of the General Assembly also said that it is crucial that any reforms to the
Security Council reflect the realities of the 21st century.
El objetivo del veto inicial ya no es lo q era y funcionaria sin veto?

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

So, we know from the experience of the cold war that when we have two big superpowers and
a very polarised world and these two big superpowers have veto power, the use of this power
can block important decisions.

Taking into consideration the rising competition and tension between China and the USA: Do
you believe that the UN could end up in a similar situation as it was after Cold War with a high
number of vetoes and the incapacity to act?

Do you think that the SC reflect cold war reality, which is far away from the actual international
politics context or you believe that the SC has always been an instrument for expressing
political positions among permanent members? Esto es justificalble? Superioridad?

ejemplos

National interest

Democratization principle of equality

2.

Do you think that the UN would function without veto power? Do you think that the
alternatives proposed by the countries are realistic and effective?

UNITTING FOR PEACE:

Since 2005, Germany with Brazil and Japan wanted to promote a change in the security
council, demanding more representation for Africa and Latin America. However, it efforts has
not been enough.

France is in favour of a more representative United Nations To this end, the French president
has submitted an ambitious yet simple proposal to the United Nations General Assembly.

The proposal was that if the Security Council were required to decide with regard to a mass
crime, the permanent members would agree to suspend their right to veto. To be realistically
applicable, this code would exclude cases where the vital national interests of a permanent
member of the Council were at stake.
The key to the veto problem is the existence or non-existence of great power antagonism. If
there were perfect relations among the chief members of the UN there will be no problem
with the use of the veto. But given the friction and conflict among these powers the veto will
inevitably be called upon by a power or a group of great powers which find themselves being
outvoted in an important matter of power politics,
Ante la perseverancia de los crímenes atroces en distintos puntos del planeta, crece la opinión
jurídica y política de que el CS debe obligarse a tomar cartas definitivas en el asunto. Sobre la
base de que el genocidio, los crímenes de guerra y de lesa humanidad y la depuración étnica
constituyen una amenaza a la paz y seguridad internacionales, se insiste en que no sólo el CS
está legitimado para intervenir, sino que está obligado a hacerlo. El problema es que, como ya
hemos argumentado precedentemente, el deseo, angustiosamente legítimo, choca con la
realidad jurídica pues una lectura literal de la Carta diluye los buenos propósitos. Porque el
capítulo VII (“Acción en caso de amenazas a la paz, quebrantamientos de la paz o actos de
agresión”) en su artículo 42 prescribe que “si el Consejo de Seguridad estimase que las
medidas… pueden ser inadecuadas… podrá ejercer, por medio de fuerzas aéreas, navales o
terrestres, la acción que sea necesaria para mantener o restablecer la paz y la seguridad
internacionales”. El matiz clave reside en que la Carta prescribe que el Consejo “podrá
ejercer”, en lugar de “ejercerá”, lo que convierte la decisión del CS en facultativa, no en
obligatoria. Ya en 1945, los Grandes que propiciaron la creación de la ONU se encargaron de
dejar las cosas bien atadas: “A la vista de las responsabilidades primarias de los miembros
permanentes, en la actual situación del mundo, no se podría esperar de ellos que asumieran la
obligación de actuar en un asunto tan serio como el mantenimiento de la paz y seguridad
internacionales como consecuencia de una decisión en la que ellos no habían participado”.

Moral principle

EFFECTIVE

hinder

VETO POWER

MU BIEN Q NO HAYA VETO Y TODOS LOS PAISES SON IGUALES

Mayority rule?

Ejemplos donde el veto haya salido y no haya saliso

Eu

Alternatives? Africa? Europa no tan unido como africa

Cold war

China vs usa algo igual como la cold war nunca acuerdo ,competición

Q pasa si no hoy veto?