They can proclaim embargoes and sanctions, but the UN has no military forces; military forces have to be provided by nations. The nations involved can enforce the sanctions or ignore them, or anything in between. If some nation wants to enforce sanctions and embargoes, and another nation wants to evade these actions, then there's a potential for military conflict.
For example, if the UN were to impose sanctions on Russia and an embargo on Crimea, any attempt of the USA to enforce embargo would likely lead to conflict. That's why Barack Obama has proposed only incredibly tiny and ineffectual sanctions on Russia; Vladimir Putin wouldn't stand for it. With the rapidly declining American military and the expansion of Russian military might, if push came to shove, the USA would suffer an embarrassing defeat and humiliation. And both Putin and Obama know it.
Depends on which resolution your are talking about.
The ruling body of the united nations is called the security council which of the following countries is not a permanent member of the security council?
Russia and China .
Iraq
yes
Since most nations of the world are in the United Nations, all of the countries fighting in Iraq and UN member states. The US has in the past used Iraq's material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1441 and 687 to justify the invasion of Iraq. Despite United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 later recognizing US/UK jurisdiction over Iraq as legal, the invasion was never supported by a Security Council resolution.
There are 5 countries that are permanent members.
They abstained. And it was GA Resolution rather than a vote in the Security Council that led to the partition plan (GARes 181)
CHINA RUSSIA
20555
No. Just to give one example, some nations are members of the UN "Security Council" and others aren't. Any Security Council nation can veto a UN resolution.
You suck for asking this question, go die in a hole!!