pudge's Journal: United Nations Security Council and Abstaining

On The West Wing tonight, CJ told the Chinese ambassador he could just abstain from a vote instead of vetoing it or voting for it.

However, a concurring vote from all five permanent member is required for any Security Council decision. Vetoing really means either a no vote, or abstaining from a vote.

There's one exception: if the abstention is due to the member being a party to the vote, it does not result in a veto, if the resolution is in regard to settling a dispute peacefully. I wonder how closely this is enforced though: can France just say they are abstaining from any given vote by saying it will help settle some dispute peacefully and they are a party to it?

Probably, given the UN's record of enforcing its own rules.

I'm confused.

[Timex]

Maybe it's because I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, but:

There's one exception: if the abstention is due to the member being a party to the vote, it does not result in a veto, if the resolution is in regard to settling a dispute peacefully. I wonder how closely this is enforced though: can France just say they are abstaining from any given vote by saying it will help settle some dispute peacefully and they are a party to it?

That doesn't make much sense to me. The situation at the end is very

Re:I'm confused.

[pudge]

The situation at the end is very close to what happened when GWB (with allies) decided to go into Iraq. The difference is that the UN didn't (publically) make any votes on it until about a year and a half after it began. (If they did, it never made the news.)

So... Am I missing something?

No, I think I am. What's this got to do with what I was talking about?

Re:I'm confused.

[Timex]

No, I think I am. What's this got to do with what I was talking about?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure.

I should be barred from my keyboard until I can demonstrate that I've had at LEAST two cups of coffee (or at least one espresso).

Don't mind me...

Abstention is not a "No" vote

[johndiii]

Your conclusion seems to follow from the wording of the charter itself (Article 27) [un.org], but in practice the procedures are as described in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. Abstention can cause a motion to fail for lack of the nine affirmative votes required, however.

Re:Abstention is not a "No" vote

[pudge]

No, you're missing the point. Yes, an abstention is not a No vote, but it is a veto UNLESS that anstention is done because the member abstaining is a party to the resolution, which is regarding a peaceful settlement to a dispute. Them's the rules. So what must be happening is the UNSC is either ignoring its rules in whole -- unlikely -- or the UN simply gives wide berth for members to decide for themselves whether their abstention fits the exception.