A state political regime in which the executive power is not elected and stays permanently in the political power and in which this organ exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspect of life, and deny any form of political opposition is called a totalitarian regime. Ironically, the same regime at the international level is called a Great power or a Security Council permanent member. This member sits indeed on the council in a permanent manner and have a full control on all the decision making process. More than that, when it is confronted to a position that doesn’t suit its proper interests, it will simply deny it by resorting to its superpower: the veto. The 2015 Security Council (SC) report states that the veto power is constituted
…show more content…
Therefore, its abolition must be seriously considered and there are more than enough reasons for that.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, I will assert that the Security Council’s veto power should be abolished for the following reasons: it is undemocratic, anachronistic and superfluous, and it only serves the P5’s vital interest. Second, I will argue that otherwise, its use must at least obey a normative code consensually agreed by the international community.
Even though it originated from the United Nations Charter, The veto power is certainly an undemocratic practice. This claim can be easily proven by simply analyzing this abusive right through the prism of democracy concepts. In fact, the prevalent political literature states that for a system to be democratic it must meet its most important principles: the equality between its members without any discrimination, the compromise as a base of making decisions, and the majority’s right to rule. Thus, a simple confrontation of these principles to the veto aspects will allow us to confirm its undemocratic …show more content…
Its abolition should be seriously considered not only because of its undemocratic character but also for it is an anachronistic and a superfluous practice.
The international context in which the veto power was adopted has evolved in way that its use seems now to be incompatible with the current civilized conception of the international relations. It seems also that this practice is completely superfluous to the main purpose of the UN Charter which consist of preserving the international peace and stability.
First, the veto right was settled as a war trophy by the Great Powers just after they won the Second World War, in order to consolidate their position as a superpower. In reality, the post war era was instable and tense, and the IC’s main purpose was to prevent the eruption of another war, thereby the need of a form of collective security was so pressing that it was conceded without any condition to the P5 members who took the initiative to define its rules and to dictate its legal framework on a unilateral basis. Since then, the P5 have maintained this imbalanced organization even though the security situation has changed, to describe this attitude, Malik (2005, p.19) stated “The SC continue to reflect the global power structure of 1945 when the five second world war victors acquired their privileged status.” As a result, some of the Charter norms are substantially
Therefore, its abolition must be seriously considered and there are more than enough reasons for that.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, I will assert that the Security Council’s veto power should be abolished for the following reasons: it is undemocratic, anachronistic and superfluous, and it only serves the P5’s vital interest. Second, I will argue that otherwise, its use must at least obey a normative code consensually agreed by the international community.
Even though it originated from the United Nations Charter, The veto power is certainly an undemocratic practice. This claim can be easily proven by simply analyzing this abusive right through the prism of democracy concepts. In fact, the prevalent political literature states that for a system to be democratic it must meet its most important principles: the equality between its members without any discrimination, the compromise as a base of making decisions, and the majority’s right to rule. Thus, a simple confrontation of these principles to the veto aspects will allow us to confirm its undemocratic …show more content…
Its abolition should be seriously considered not only because of its undemocratic character but also for it is an anachronistic and a superfluous practice.
The international context in which the veto power was adopted has evolved in way that its use seems now to be incompatible with the current civilized conception of the international relations. It seems also that this practice is completely superfluous to the main purpose of the UN Charter which consist of preserving the international peace and stability.
First, the veto right was settled as a war trophy by the Great Powers just after they won the Second World War, in order to consolidate their position as a superpower. In reality, the post war era was instable and tense, and the IC’s main purpose was to prevent the eruption of another war, thereby the need of a form of collective security was so pressing that it was conceded without any condition to the P5 members who took the initiative to define its rules and to dictate its legal framework on a unilateral basis. Since then, the P5 have maintained this imbalanced organization even though the security situation has changed, to describe this attitude, Malik (2005, p.19) stated “The SC continue to reflect the global power structure of 1945 when the five second world war victors acquired their privileged status.” As a result, some of the Charter norms are substantially