Talk:United Nations Security Council veto power
|WikiProject International relations / United Nations||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Veto Power Reform
I've made changes to veto power reform. It needs some citation and the like, and may not be in the style needed; as this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I understand if it needs to be reverted. Methulah 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to Rwanda as I don't see how the reference indicates that UN inaction was due to the veto. If there had been no veto, then the UN probably would have been just as slow to react.
UN against war because of vetoed Israel Issues?
"[The United States] has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as seen with the 2003 Iraqi war which was not endorsed by the UN." -- Is that really the reason most of the general assembly didn't endorse the invasion? If it really was then the statement really needs references (as it sounds implausible otherwise). Lionfish
- A complete list (up to 2009) is available here. I don't think they're all notable enough for Wikipedia; I would be content with an article e.g. for the most extreme cases where a resolution was rejected 14-1 (14 supporters, 1 veto). The US, Russia and China all figure in some such cases. Apparently the majority of these were indeed vetoes by the US on resolutions against Israel. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
List of vetoes
- I second the request for a list of vetoed proposals. I suggest a table with the headings date, vetoing nation, proposal. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Table of veto statistics
I really like the bar chart, but it is hard to quote and it groups far too many years together. I'd like to see a sortable table with the headings year, nation, # of vetos.
When is it not a veto?
- They probably decided it was a procedural issue, and therefore not subject to the 'veto'. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8AA:CCCA:F4AA:9D6D (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Limits of 'veto' power
The introduction currently reads '. . . enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title.' However, the paragraph which describes the 'veto power' qualifies it with 'provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.'
So the permanent members cannot veto any substantive resolution. Article 52 para 3, and Chapter VI, both concern investigations or recommendations, and not military or economic action, but it's certainly reasonable that many decisions to start an investigation could be seen as "substantive". 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8AA:CCCA:F4AA:9D6D (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)