The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear List, Discussions have concentrated on whether or not an abstention from voting by a permanent member of the SC should bar the adoption of a resolution. Counter arguments have been presented, including the ruling by the ICJ regarding South Africa. It has been pointed out that the Charter does not require the concurring vote of ALL permanent members. I disagree with that. I will take an example. The problem with implementing resolution 242 (Arab-Israeli conflict), was due to interpretation of the text, where the resolution demands Israeli withdrawal from "Arab lands" and not from "The Arab lands". This was interpreteed to mean "any Arab lands", and thus Israel (supported by the US) explained it had implemented the resolution by withdrawing from Sinai. In the instance of the voting, article 27 of the Charter requires "THE concurring votes of THE permanent members". Can one draw a parallel with this, since the issue hinges on interpretation? In 1945, when the invitations were sent out to 39 nations "to send representatives to a conference at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security", the text of the voting procedure was also included with the invitation. The explanatory Statement by Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. issued on March 5, 1945 included the following: "Where the Council is engaged in performing its political functions of action for maintenance of peace and security, a difference is made between the permanent members of the Council and other nations for the practical reason that the permanent members of the Council must, as a matter of necessity, bear the principal responsibility for action. Unanimous agreement among the permanent members of the Council is therefore requisite. In such matters, therefore, the concurrence of all the permanent members would be required. Examples are: (A) Determination of the existence of a threat or breach of the peace; (B) Use of force or other enforcement measures; (C) Approval of agreements for supply of armed forces; (D) Matters relating to the regulation of armaments; and (E) Matters concerning the suspension and expulsion of members, and the admission of new members. " This, in my opinion, goes to show the intention expressed by the inviting nations to the nations of the world. The full text can be found at: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450305a.html Hassan _________________________________________________________ Have fun! Meet so many Arabs from all over the world through Maktoob Chat. http://www.maktoob.com/ _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk