Where's our UN Veto Power?

[carage]

I just read through the UN Charter sections regarding the Security Council.
Unfortunately I can't find the veto power of Permanent Security Council members being listed anywhere.
Can anyone tell me where to find that rule?
Thanks.

 

[Yomicron]

Chapter 5

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

 

[carage]

I found this in the UN CHarter
Chapter 5 Article 27 Section 3 Security Council Voting

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

However, the statement above seems to be only limited to decisions of the Security Council.
So, does the permament members of the Security Council have the right to veto decisions of the General Assembly? Common sense says yes, but where is the basis of that power?
The power of veto does not show up anywhere in the UN Charter.

Please help me find the basis of such veto powers.

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: Yomicron
Chapter 5

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Thank you. I found that piece of info too.
However, the wording makes it seems that it is only limited to issues of the Security Council, but not to the General Assembly. I am trying to find something written down in text that specifically states that permament members of the Security Council can basically veto anything in the UN.

 

[SuperTool]

US has vetoed almost every UN resolution wrt to Israel.

 

[carage]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
US has vetoed almost every UN resolution wrt to Israel.

I know that.
The members have used the veto powers on issues a lot, but nowhere I can find the basis to veto General Assembly decisions.

 

[carage]

Or perhaps there is some article that states that ALL General Assembly resolutions MUST be approved by the Security Council? So article 27 would in practicality give permanent security council members the right to veto without specifically stating that they have the power to do so.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: carage

So, does the permament members of the Security Council have the right to veto decisions of the General Assembly? Common sense says yes, but where is the basis of that power?
The power of veto does not show up anywhere in the UN Charter.

Please help me find the basis of such veto powers.
...
The members have used the veto powers on issues a lot, but nowhere I can find the basis to veto General Assembly decisions.

There is no veto in the General Assembly because it would be pointless. The resolutions from the General Assembly are not binding on any member state, they are simply a poll of world opinion.

The Security Council can choose to address or ignore the issues raised by the General Assembly.

 

[Kibbo]

Right, the General Assembly cannot impose santions or authorize military action. Nor can it prevent the SEcurity council from doing either.

It can only pass resolutions condemning bad things, or ratifying international treaties, which then have to be ratified by each member state's individual legislative bodies.

This is why there are so many international treaties that the US isn't a part of, the GA passes them (like the land mine ban), but each country is free to not ratify them.

Also, the SC cannot veto any of resolutions of the GA.

Note that any article (in a good paper, at least) will specifically call it a "security council resolution" or something to distinguish the two.

 

[carage]

Then why would anyone bother with UN Resolutions if it has no teeth?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: carage
Then why would anyone bother with UN Resolutions if it has no teeth?

Warm fuzzy and looks good to the constituents back home

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
US has vetoed almost every UN resolution wrt to Israel.

Yes they have. They do that because an overwhelming number of resolution are regularly drafted by Arab nations against Israel which are one-sided. THeir resolutions condemn the Israelis while failing to recognize the culpability of the Palestinians in the matter. Negroponte finally stated the the US would veto any UN resolution against Israel that does not condemn acts of Palestinian terrorism as well.

I'm no fan of Israel by any means, but the game the Arab states are playing in the UN is obvious and their lack of ever indicting the Palestinians for their terorist acts is transparent. Therefore I agree with the stance the US has taken in this matter.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: SuperTool
US has vetoed almost every UN resolution wrt to Israel.

Yes they have. They do that because an overwhelming number of resolution are regularly drafted by Arab nations against Israel which are one-sided. THeir resolutions condemn the Israelis while failing to recognize the culpability of the Palestinians in the matter. Negroponte finally stated the the US would veto any UN resolution against Israel that does not condemn acts of Palestinian terrorism as well.

I'm no fan of Israel by any means, but the game the Arab states are playing in the UN is obvious and their lack of ever indicting the Palestinians for their terorist acts is transparent. Therefore I agree with the stance the US has taken in this matter.

Well said