Talk:United Nations Security Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Nations Security Council is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
October 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal
This article is part of the International law WikiProject, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of international law. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

What about some stuff about Security Council reforms, democratization and non-veto system???? UN Security Council refom.Mac 11:16 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, this is an article about the UN, not abt unachievable fantasies.
See Reform of the United Nations. That content on UNSC reform proposals should probably be merged somehow. Rad Racer 20:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, merge it. Skinnyweed 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing more about the security council resolution. Particularly, I'd appreciate if someone could ellaborate on the legal binding-ness of SC resolutions. The mention to the ICJ's Namibia case in the current version is something I still cannot understand. Isn't that about UN General Assembly resolutions? Thanks, Tomos 00:59 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Soviet to Russ transition

I rewrote the sentence to

After the USSR broke up and then formally dissolved itself, Russia was treated as its successor.

but i wonder if this was the full story: it is likely that

  • one of the measures involved in the dissolution was the SU formally "notifying" the UN that it was designating the RF as its successor in the seat, and if so it may be (diplomacy being a diplomatic affair) that the UN
    • took explicit note of that assertion or not, but if so
      • acknowledged that the designation was binding upon it, or
      • asserted that the designation was legally irrelevant, or
      • avoided the question.

(There is no mention in international law of the important concept of successor state, which may even deserve an article.)

--- Would someone who knows something about the subject (e.g. anyone but me ;} ) like to write a paragraph on the actual day-to-day operation of the Security Council- how the countries are represented, how the meetings are run, etc? I found a reference elsewhere to Sir Patrick Dean having been president of the Security Council (for a month-long term, I think?), but I'm not sure what that role entails. Anyone out there in wiki-space feel like filling the rest of us in? -FZ

The Security Council presidency rotates each month. So whoever is the head ambassador for that country will be the Security Council president for that month.Kwazyutopia19 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19

[edit] Member list

My edit of 12:33, 19 Feb 2005 updated the member list to:

The elected members for the 2005 calendar year are:

  1. Algeria
  2. Argentina
  3. Benin
  4. Brazil
  5. Denmark
  6. Greece
  7. Japan
  8. Philippines
  9. Romania
  10. Tanzania

But this was reverted by somebody one minute later. Is there any reason for using an outdated list?

Question 12/30/05 8:00 PM EST

Um, why is Greece in Western Europe?

It's Western Europe and others... Greece is aligned with the EU and NATO rather then Russia and the formet Soviet Union so it's part of Western Europe in this regard Nil Einne 09:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Republic of China

I have had little luck in finding the date that the People's Republic of China was admitted to the security council. I'M pretty sure it's in the 60's but not 100% as there is no infomation. Any help would be great.

It was in 1971. Thats right. --IncMan 12:22, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text vs practice

In SC, abstention is not considered a veto. This is clearly in violation of UN Charter: According to UN Charter, a SC resolution is adopted by 9 concurring votes, including 5 permanent SC members. Concurring means approval.

Is this correct ?

Yes it's correct. But have in mind that UNSC practice is that an abstention is not considered a veto, and legally speaking it is not, even though the Charter says otherwise. --Cybbe 18:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I always wondered about that. 24.54.208.177 05:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Late to the party, but my understanding is simply that an abstention is not considered a vote at all technically.UOSSReiska 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5 members

Cybbe, think that there was a short period around (and somewhat earlier than) when the PRC replaced Taiwan that the Chinese seat was held vacant, so there were effectively only four. Also the Soviet boycott that allowed the Korean war resolution to go through, had earlier reduced it effectively to four - should also be in history section. Perhaps these are what the person who used "currently" meant.--John Z 22:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There have always been 5 seats, the situations you refer to do not change this fact. During the Soviet boycott they still "had" their seat, they simply didnt use it. The UN Charter has always referred to five permament members. It is no "big deal" whether 'currently' is included or not (mostly a semantic question probably), I feel it implies some variances to the number of permament members, when there in fact is none. --Cybbe 00:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The Islamic member - a point of controversy

This section is constantly confusing a religion and a region -- it jumps back and forth between saying the Middle East has no security council vote, then starts talking about an Islamic member. It's also confusing in that it repeats calls for a Muslim seat on the security council -- as if a relgion can sit on the council, or as if there already exists other religions on the council. If anyone wants to take a stab at fixing this language, please feel free, or I will start removing and rewording text at a later date. --Quasipalm 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You bring a very good point. On that note, what about muslim dominated countires outside the Middle East like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladash. Are these nations allowed to hold security concil seats?

That's not the way the security council works! Different regions caucus and vote for their representatives. Countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh vote with the Asian bloc. And the seat for the Muslim nation alterantes between Africa and Asia and only a Middle Eastern nation is allowed to run. Also it's correct muslim and middle eastern in the article because the only countries in the middle east that can run for that seat are muslim. A country like Israel is part of the Western European bloc. Kwazyutopia19 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Kwazyutopia19

[edit] Are we forgetting the world's second largest nation?

"The African group chooses three members; the Latin American, Asian and Western European blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member."

And what about Canada (which is not part of Latin America)?? David 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada was on the UNSC on 1948, for instance. I believe the rules are not these ones. Doidimais Brasil 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Canada and Australia and New Zealand are part of the Western Europe and others bloc. Kwazyutopia19 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Kwazyutopia19

[edit] Naming the Security Council Ambassadors?

I was wondering if anyone would agree that putting the names of the individual Permanent Representatives somewhere in this article, or say, List of UN Permanent Representatives by country? I wouldn't be able to contribute much as I'm not that knowledgeable but I thought it important, and was surprised to find only an article on John R. Bolton, making an article for Emyr Jones Parry myself. -Erolos 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • So, it would be an article to list heads of mission of the p5? Perhaps if it were to be the heads of mission for all the ambassadors of the sc, it would make a little more sense. It could even be included on this page. Mystache 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian economy

It is stated in the text that Brazil is being nominated to be a permanent member due in part that it has the largest economy in Latin America. Both the World Bank and the IMF list the Mexican economy as being larger that the Brazilian. This statement should be corrected.

Are you living in the past or something? According to Wikipedia itself, both the IMF and the World Bank list Mexico as having a smaller economy then Brazil [[1]]. Admitedly, this is for 2004, but I doubt Mexico has overtaken Brazil since if anything I expect the gap has grown... Nil Einne 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what your looking at now. I guess you're looking at the nominal GDP [[2]]? AFAIK, GDP based on the PPP is generally regarded as a fairer and more accurate representation of a countries economic status and well being. It's what's used by Wikipedia for example. You're welcome to point out it's not if you use the nominal GDP but make sure you're consistent i.e. you have to raise this issue for every country discussed here when the size of the economy is raised if it also applies... Nil Einne 13:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the GDP (both PPP and nominal) is not the absolute measure to state the size of a country's economy. second , if it is, than Brazil is the largest of Latin America in every way you measure it. PPP, GNP and GDP (yes, look at the figures for 2006, Brazil passed Mexico).

[edit] POV

However, questions still remain. How did such traditional UN stalwarts as Canada and the Nordic countries get left out of a plan that would leave them on the sidelines but elevate larger developing countries, some of which represent threats to international peace and security? Also these liberal democracies have wholeheartedly adopted Universal Human Rights while many of the proposed new members have a history of abuses towards their own populations.

I've removed this statement as it hardly seems NPOV. At the very least it's very poorly written since it's in the first person. However while it may have some valid points that are worth including, it also misses some other relevant points especially in comparison to current permanent member states. For example, German and Japan clearly have better domestic and international human rights records then China and Russia, and arguably so does Brazil and India. In fact Germany and Japan arguably have better human rights records then the USA. Also, it's highly arguable if any of these countries are worse threats to international peace and security then the USA, China and the UK. In fact, claiming a country is a threat to international peace and security is loaded IMHO and should be avoided whenever possible. In any case, if we're going to get into I'm better then you arguments, what about New Zealand or numerous other countries? For that matter, what about Canada's treatment of the native population? What about the issues between within Nordic countries (such as Denmark) regarding immigrants? What about the issues such as Norway's whaling and reported bribing of small countries to support their whaling? Also, I'm quite unsure about this but how do Nordic countries compare to others when it comes to their acceptance and treatement of refugees? All these apply to both human rights issues and international peace and security Nil Einne 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the contradict template.

After revamping the African section on candidacy (and most of the membership reform sections), I have removed the contradict template tag at the top of the page.

If anyone wishes to dispute this, please discuss it here before reverting it.

Thanks.--Dan (Talk)|@ 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

I removed Iran from the list of non-member nuclear powers. Someone was getting abit ahead of the news on that one.--Sennaista 19:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries

In the Security Council Template the 2006 countries, were not updated so I added them. Also Greece appeared before Ghana, so I changed it.


[edit] Nigeria

Currently, there's some tourist-brochure puffery of Nigeria's importance, without any mention of the numerous obvious negative factors which might impact Nigeria's chances of gaining some kind of permanent council seat. Either the exclusively positive glowing spin has to be diminished somewhat, or there must be some mention made of counterbalancing negatives. AnonMoos 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reform section too large

Can we cut the size of the reform section and move a bunch of it to the main article for that? It seems really long and throws off the balance of this article. The SC has been around for over 50 years but some of the reforms are much newer and having more about them than the SC itself gives it undue weight. gren グレン ? 08:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership?

It's darned hard to find out, for example, who's going to be chairing the council in, say, three months. Since the leadership rotates, something on this would be nice to see.


[edit] Removal of Security Council translations

I don't think that the translations for the UNSC are really relevent and are pointless. If I really wanted to know what their name was in another language, then I could just scan the list at the left hand side for the name of the article in the appropriate language. I mean, it's not rocket science and this is the English Wikipedia.--Dan (Talk)|@ 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and should be included. This is the English Wikipedia, yes, but not the ignorant-because-English-is-the-only-language-that-matters Wikipedia. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 08:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language template poll

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the acronym P5

Should this page give light to the use of the acronym P5 often used by the US State Department and other government agencies in describing the permanent members of the UN Security Council? When I first attempted to figure out what this acronym (or in fact P5+1, which I believe includes an EU rep) described, I turned to wikipedia and found nothing. I would consider noting this to be a benefitial change to the page

Be bold. Go ahead and add it. Robert Brockway 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil references

Can anyone provide a reference for the first bullet of why Brazil may have a strong chance at acquiring a permanent seat? "They sent troops to defeat the Axis and were meant to get a seat when the UN was created," is not very informative for the curious. Were all nations that sent troops to be on it? A link or something would be fine. --will 09:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been moved from the top in keeping with the chronological nature of talk pages.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster1/2004/0922permbids.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/index.htm
There are further links in those pages which discuss reasons behind why the G4 believe they deserve SC status individually.--Dan (Talk)|@ 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

The entry on Japan seems weighted against their addition to the Security Council. There is an entire paragraph explaining the opposing country's position and the recent protests. The connection between the protests and the opposing country's opposition to a possible Japanese Security Council seat is flimsy at best. Whohangs 15:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It explicitly mentions that Japan is most likely to get a seat. Skinnyweed 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possible merges

Reform of the United Nations Security Council and UN Security Council Veto Power. Perhaps we could merge one (or both). Reform is smaller than the UNSC page. Skinnyweed 22:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved most of United Nations Security Council#Membership reform to Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Not sure if the structure I implemented there actually works. BanyanTree 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requirements for reform

Is this the only requirement for reform:

Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the UN General Assembly which translates to 128 votes.

So i.e. any proposal will only have to be accepted by 2/3s of the UN General Assembly and will not for example have to be voted on in the Security Council itself. This is quite important because if a proposal has to be voted on in the Security Council then any proposal will have to at least not be opposed (even if not supported) by any of the 5 permanent members otherwise it will simply be vetoed. Nil Einne 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Because in order for there to be a change in the SC, the SC must pass the resolution. I know that General Assembly committees can vote to kick members out but then again GA committees aren't spelled out in the charter.–—Kwazyutopia19

Any amendement to the UN Charter must have the approval of 2/3rds of UN memebers AND the P5 (veto holders) - it's in Chapter 18, Article 109. So there can't be any amendment to the UN Charter without agreement from China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. Auric04 05:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

I find it a little hard to believe that Brazil would actually argue that its extremely minor military contribution to the Second World War (which was over sixty years ago!) would give it any sort of entitlement to a seat on the Security Council. Unless someone can provide an authoritative source for this assertion, it should be deleted. Silverhelm 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC).

I agree with you, a lot of other nations sent troops as well, what make Brazil so special? Unsigned comment by 124.183.28.217, 08:24, 8 June 2006
There's also that! Silverhelm 14:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
Totally agree with you guys. I'll delete it ASAP. —Coat of Arms (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. I also removed the comment about the G4 (it's not a reason for a permanent seat) and Brazilian UN troops, a lot of countries send soldiers to peacekeeping missions, but that doesn't make you a candidate for the United Nations Security Council. —Coat of Arms (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why doesn't this page (should) list

real clearly, as close to the top of the page as possible the permanent members:

russia
china
france
US
UK

or whatever. it's all soviet union blah blah,,,, historically blah blah,,,, yameen? McKzzFizzer 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the historical stuff that comes first feels distracting, tho if the list is bold and easy to notice, it prob wouldn't need to be moved closer to the top. if no one else really cares, I'll prob be back to look into a change like this. McKzzFizzer 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nononononono, the permanent members are not the security council. They are 1/3 of the SC no matter how much power they have.

Would a small table be possible to place at the top with the "Members" section picture and a list of the permanent members and then the temporary ones as well? It took me a while to find out the members when I was researching this subject myself. Personally, I am not good with Wikipedia code...so it would be cool if another person could make a table if this is approved? Rockymountains 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains

[edit] Addition to Germany section

I added a note about the fact that the UN was formed at a time when Germany had been defeated and split up under the control of other countries. My intent was to elaborate on the fact that it was in quite poor standing with the world (not to mention in shambles) and would probably not have been given a seat on the council no matter how powerful or important Germany was or is. These seats being permanent, there is an argument for Germany having received the short end of the stick - do you see where I'm going with this? I didn't add all of this in because I haven't researched it, but I'm sure there are sources out there that will point this out and go into more detail. 67.181.63.245 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N Korea has nuclear weapons?

This article states as fact that N. Korea has nuclear weapons. I thought it was still a matter of debate as to whether the nuclear test was in fact that - and does a single successful test mean the country "has nuclear weapons"? Rawling 08:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there has been one rather dubious test. Most experts say that the difference from going from a crude test to actually building a nuclear warhead possible of being put into a ballistic rocket is quite the jump. I think people too easily fill in the blanks of making a test and actually having weapons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
I brought the N.Korea statement in line with the content on N.Korea's page -- that is, a test was conducted but the small yield led some to doubt the success of the test. Also, yes, I agree, there's quit a lot of work between a test and a ballistic rocket; however, "nuclear weapons" are not limited in scope to ballistic rockets -- the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devices very similar to the Nevada tests, merely packaged as a bomb and dropped from a plane. Therefore, I moved the N.Korea to the sentence regarding Israel, that it is "generally" believed that these two have nuclear weapons but that there are some reservations. (In fact, "generally" might be too strong for N.Korea -- it probably would suffice to say "some".) -- Thoreaulylazy 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The first map that shows the current members of the UN Security Council, I believe has a small inaccuracy concerning France. Neither Corsica, nor French Guiana are coloured in, despite being integral regions of France. (French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion are members of the EU through France if I'm not mistaken, and I also believe they have members in the French lower house). At the very least however Corsica should be coloured blue. Obviously this is not a big error, I'm not trying to be picky, just helpful. I'm unsure of how images work in regards to wikipedia, so if someone who does wants to take care of it, feel free, if not, it's not really a big deal anyways. Basser g 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed this

the United States acquiesced in this change in accordance with the Nixon-Kissinger policy of rapprochement with China. Owing to Washington's role as sole guarantor of Taiwan's security, Taipei was reluctantly induced to adhere by the Assembly's resolution and lost its prestigious permanent seat and membership in the UN. (See China and the United Nations)

Actually the US was outvoted in the General Assembly and the ROC delegation walked out.

Roadrunner 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC) even if it did not walk out, it will be expelled any way

[edit] 2006 appointments - Panama selected?

Shouldn't this section be changed? Panama was selected to the Security Council. Gadig 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of the Security Council - Dutch peacekeepers

This sentence, Srebrenica had been declared a U.N. "safe area" and was even protected by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers, but the U.N. forces did nothing to prevent the massacre., is quite biased and inflammatory. Saying they did nothing to prevent the massacre gives the impression that they Dutch soldiers basically stood there watching (condoning) this massacre. Most neutral accounts mention the Dutch peacekeepers were outnumbered, outarmed, and were really in no position to prevent this tragedy. These were basically kids sent in to be police - and things turned out how no one had expected, unfortunately. It seems they were more just shocked at how things happened so fast and didn't know what to do.

400 Dutch peacekeepers didn't fire a shot or call for any backup as over 8,000 civilians were killed in a declared 'safe zone' established by the UN. Nothing is nothing, regardless of circumstances.Cromdog 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Israel?

While I think it's common knowledge that Israel likely has nuclear weapons, the article asserts this without any sort of sourcing. This should probably be corrected UOSSReiska 11:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] veto power

i read: "Since 1984, the numbers [of vetoes] have been: ..."

What happened in 1984, that we give a count from then? i find nothing in the article about that year, nor in the separate United Nations Security Council veto power article. TIA for making it clearer.

--Jerome Potts 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Role of President

I've updated the text to read "the Security Council member nations' names" to clarify that the non-Security Council members of the UN do not take a turn in this role. Also, it should be clarified whether only the each of the P5 takes a turn, or every member of the SC takes a turn. I don't know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dblanchard (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Uncompliance with UNSC Resolutions

Has UN Security Council ever taken any punitive action against UN member states for failing to comply with legal binding UNSC resolutions made under Chapter VI of UN Charter ?

Siyac 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please see my post at WP:FTN and add your comments regarding whether resolutions are binding

See here and add your comments if you have any. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)