Resolution 377 allows the UN body to take action whenever there was an indication that the UN Security Council may have failed to “exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
100 points (100.0% liked)
worldnews
4787 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The wikipedia is interesting, I didn't know it was called that many times
I'm a little unclear on which ones were successful but it looks like a few were?
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members (P5), fails to act as required to maintain international security and peace, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to UN members for collective measures, including the use of armed force when necessary, in order to maintain or restore international security and peace. It was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5, with 2 abstentions. The resolution was designed to provide the UN with an alternative avenue for action when at least one P5 member uses its veto to obstruct the Security Council from carrying out its functions mandated by the UN Charter.
Emphasis added. I read the definition in the article but I didn’t see it didn’t specify the powers that gives the GA.
I doubt it would ever actually happen, but a UN peacekeeping force getting sent into Gaza would be some wild ass shit.
Fact that Mauritania is the cosigner makes me think Egypt just wanted anyone at all to go along with them so they can basically threaten Israel under UN sanction
I'd be shocked if it worked, mostly because escalation at this point is immediately going to ignite like 50 different proxy, civil, and interstate wars as KSA and Iran throw all the shit straight into the fan playing then counterplaying each other and taking their attention off secondary conflicts until we somethefuckhow wind up with the war for greater Azerbaijan becoming a thing because Netenyahu thought starting an irredentist genocide was how he'd save himself from being dragged into the streets like a Likkud Ghadaffi over trying to rig the courts in retaliation for them pointing out that the current plans for Irredentist genocide were illegal even under Israeli law.
What will they do to stop the US from vetoing once again?
The US can veto the Security Council because the power is there in that smaller scenario. They can't override the entire UN General Assembly, though. That said, I'm sure there would be behind the scenes pressure from the US on allies voting in the GA.
I'm more concerned about the double standard of the White House skirting Congress to supply Israel with tank ammo (does Hamas even have equipment they'd use that against, you know, besides hospitals and schools,?) vs. allowing Republicans in Congress to delay/prevent aid to Ukraine and possibly hand it to Russia.
(does Hamas even have equipment they’d use that against, you know, besides hospitals and schools,?)
You forgot mosques and refugee shelters.
We the U.S. will make sure humanitarian and military aids will be given to the oppressed
~Butonlyifitmakesusmoney~
There are no vetoes in the General Assembly
Is there a course of action that's going to be proposed? I don't expect that anyone will want to get involved in the fighting directly, but if that's not on the table then what influence does the UN have here without US support?
I'm not holding my breath, but sanctions could be on the table.