0
Should the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council give up their permanent veto power?
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
I don't think that the council members of un. Should be given the veto power as in veto power everyone yes is important but if 1 member also refuses, the decision is not taken. For example-we can take that 3 members of security council of un. Are approving to make India also a member security council but two of them refused ,so the discussion was not proceeded further. Through this we can say that they should not be given the veto power.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe five members of the permanent security council are Britain, France, U.S., China and Russia. It's been said that it's high time that there was a broader diversity to this. Such as Brazil, Nigeria and India being added, and perhaps Egypt for Arabic input.
The actual strength of the veto power....though I don't know how total control could be strengthened...should probably not be strengthened, as it already paralyses the UN.
Wiki User
∙ 15y agoNo
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why there should be changes in the permanent members of security council?
There are changes in membership but some of the founding members have a permanent seat and this is how it should be.
That as some nations are growing in strength and others weakening there should be changes in the permanent members of the Security Council and why?
some countries increasing their strenght so there should be a tenture member of a country after 10_15 years they will replace and another country become permanent member of the secuirty council for about 10_15 years.
Why should more nations become permanent members of the Security Council?
The Security Council is currently viewed as presenting the state of international affairs at the end of WWII. The dynamics of power have changed a lot since then. States like the G4 nations of Germany, Japan, India and Brazil are the new economic powerhouses and feel that their influence should earn them a seat on the Security Council. The G4 also supports an accession to the SC of two African nations - probably South Africa, Nigeria or Egypt - to make the SC more representative of the world's population. Currently 4/5 of the nations are caucasian-dominated, three are European, yet most of the world's population is in Africa or India (which are not at all represented).
Can Brazil get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
The United Nations would need to change its charter to give Brazil a permanent seat on the Security Council. Brazil would like that. It does not look likely to happen any time soon. Brazil would also need to start taking more of a role in world wide peace keeping missions. Why should Brazil be on the Security Council if Brazil is not interested in World Peace?
What is the purpose of the United Nations Security Council?
The main purpose of the United Nations Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. It is the job of the Security Council to determine when and where a UN Peacekeeping operation should be deployed.
Can China be kicked out from the security council?
Yes. PRC can be kicked out of the Security Council, because ROC (Republic of China) used to be a founding member of Security council and United Nation. ROC should replace PRC.
Why did the UK sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has signed the treaty. Some nations agree that nuclear bombs should not used no matter the need.
Does council member get capitalized?
I believe it should be written "Council member". The term "Security Council" is always capitalized, and as Council is just a contraction of that, it should remain capitalized. However, on a quick scan of the UN website, the 'member' is not capitalized. However, "Council Member" is probably acceptable.
Why should veto power be given to permanent members only?
Well, a non-permanent member shouldnt be entitled to Veto Power, simply for the fact that they are not permanent. Question answered.
Why hasn't the UN security council given India a permanent seat?
One out of every six humans is an Indian. India is the world?s biggest, most vibrant, liberal, secular democracy. India is the world?s 4th largest economy (larger than that of UK and France combined, and larger than that of Russia) and one of the fastest growing. India is an acknowledged technology superpower. India is a responsible and peace-loving nation with a powerful armed forces firmly under civilian control. India is a responsible nuclear power with a strong record of non-proliferation. India has contributed significantly to UN peacekeeping operations. India is one of the oldest living civilizations and a perennial and prolific fountainhead of influential culture and spirituality. Yet, India does not find a place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council alongside US, Britain, China, France and Russia. The time has come for this to change. Several influential opinion leaders in leading newspapers have also advocated permanent membership for India in the UN Security Council: International Herald Tribune: "Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic. With India as a member, the Council would be a more legitimate and thus a more effective body..." -- Robert Wilcox The Washington Post: "First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council--with India and Japan as new permanent members" -- Charles Krauthammer The New York Times: "Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen...with a vote by the fans... Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That's more like it. India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation" -- Thomas Friedman While Britain, France, Russia and many other countries fully support India?s admission to the Council as a permanent member, the U.S. has not yet endorsed India?s request . There is no question that the support of the U.S. would be necessary for India?s admission as a permanent member. Since India has a very strong case for admission as a permanent member, the lack of support from the U.S. thus far is puzzling at best. In the National Security Strategy of the United States of America released in September 2002, President Bush has said: "The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia." Representative Frank Pallone (founder, India Caucus in the US Congress) introduced House Resolution 108 in the United States House of Representatives , supporting a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council on February 26, 2003. Rep. Pallone stated, "I believe it is morally wrong to ignore the voice of over one billion Indian people in security decision-making that affects them, and the rest of the world. India's location, its large population, its history of participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and its leadership in the non-alignment movement all justify its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. All five members of the UN Security Council must realize that having India as a permanent security council member will give the South Asia region a stabilizing force, helping peace efforts in Central Asia and all parts of our increasingly connected world. The United States should follow the lead of one of its most important allies and endorse a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council."
What is the origin and purpose of The Permanent Five as they relate to the United Nations?
The five permanent members of the security council were the big five victorious powers in World War II. (USA, UK, France, China, and Russia.) You could view it as the spoils of war, or the winners' guarantee that the same war doesn't happen again. It is also interesting to note that these power these countries have enable them to do as they like and simply veto any move that may stand in their way regardless of the objections of the majority of the other members of the UN. The P5 themselves, and their academic supporters, argue that they hold the power of veto as they are responsible for enforcing Security Council resolutions and ensuring International Peace and Security itself. Thus, they should not be forced into supporting a situation they do not agree with and sacrificing their own soldiers. Though, this does create a situation where SC countries can shield their allies, like the US protecting Israel, or China defending North Korea, or Russia supporting Iran.
The strengh of legislative council members shall not be less than?
the strength should not be less than 40
