The Lincoln Plawg

Thursday, February 20, 2003 02:29 p.m.

Security Council voting rules - a salutory recap

As we approach race time for the Second Resolution Handicap, the tipping action is fast and furious (as with, for example, today's New York Times.)

Talk of Mexico and Chile wanting the P5 to sort it out amongst themselves, Russia wanting to abstain, etc, etc.

But it's useful, perhaps (OK, useful for me, at least) to take another squint at the voting rules for the UN Security Council, as contained in Article 27 of the UN Charter, which reads as follows:

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, [both irrelevant to the current case] a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting

The striking things from a first re-reading are:

for a simple majority, one needs not eight but nine members voting for a decision; and
a majority is not (as is the case in most legislative bodies) calculated on the basis of the numbers present and voting.

That means, in effect, that abstentions count as votes against.

Now, when it comes to public presentation, of course, US clients like Mexico may well find it easier to justify an abstention than a vote against Uncle Sam. The guys at State will know that there is no substantial difference; but when it comes to inflicting reprisals, they may find it harder to garner any support in Congress that they need if it's a case of punishing a mere abstention, rather than a vote against.

And even France, which has seemed keen to go out of its way to pick a fight with the US, may find it can do what's necessary just by adding its name to the abstention column.

So, counting Syria and Germany as the baseline noes/abstentions, a further five in either category would suffice to beat a US/UK resolution. Russia, France, Mexico, Chile - one more and.... Let's not count chickens, though....

[There is a knock-on question relating to the Uniting for Peace Resolution business (I last discussed yesterday): in order to come within the scope of this procedure, it's necessary to show that the UNSC is deadlocked because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members. Does it matter that this deadlock is not expressed by the exercise of the veto?]