Which country benefited the most from UN Security Council vetoes?Reform of United Nations Security...
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Unable to deploy metadata from Partner Developer scratch org because of extra fields
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
Add text to same line using sed
Revoked SSL certificate
Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?
meaning of に in 本当に?
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?
Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?
Is it possible to run Internet Explorer on OS X El Capitan?
Cross compiling for RPi - error while loading shared libraries
Why do I get two different answers for this counting problem?
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?
DC-DC converter from low voltage at high current, to high voltage at low current
Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Why is Minecraft giving an OpenGL error?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
Was any UN Security Council vote triple-vetoed?
Which country benefited the most from UN Security Council vetoes?
Reform of United Nations Security CouncilOther country as permanent member of UN Security Council?Taiwan and the United NationsDoes the UN Security Council votes 14-0 to condemn Israeli settlement have binding consequences for Israel?Why do the veto power and executive orders combined not make the US President a monarch?What is the point of the UN Security council if permanent members have veto power?Does the UN have any internal safeguards applying to its resolutions?Why have US Presidents not been given the power of line item vetoes?Do the UN Security Council's policies include any way to pass a resolution when one member vetos?Was any UN Security Council vote triple-vetoed?
By benefited I mean avoided any sort of a negative decisions that could have been made by the UN Security Council if a big power didn't use the veto, such as being condemned, criticized, sanctioned, etc.
united-nations veto
add a comment |
By benefited I mean avoided any sort of a negative decisions that could have been made by the UN Security Council if a big power didn't use the veto, such as being condemned, criticized, sanctioned, etc.
united-nations veto
7
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
4
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
2
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
add a comment |
By benefited I mean avoided any sort of a negative decisions that could have been made by the UN Security Council if a big power didn't use the veto, such as being condemned, criticized, sanctioned, etc.
united-nations veto
By benefited I mean avoided any sort of a negative decisions that could have been made by the UN Security Council if a big power didn't use the veto, such as being condemned, criticized, sanctioned, etc.
united-nations veto
united-nations veto
edited 9 hours ago
reirab
4,1841626
4,1841626
asked 17 hours ago
MocasMocas
410312
410312
7
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
4
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
2
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
add a comment |
7
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
4
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
2
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
7
7
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
4
4
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
2
2
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You can find the list of vetoed resolutions on Wikipedia.
Many of the vetoes are related to the Middle East, with the US or Russia exercising their veto power for the benefit of a local ally. Other regular veto-inducing topics tend to be more localized in time -- vetoes on new memberships, Cyprus conflict, India-Pakistan conflict, South African apartheid, etc.
Cmd+F is a poor proxy to explore the data, because resolutions that benefit e.g. Israel don't always mention the latter explicitly, and you'll need to take the time to massage the data in order to get precise stats. But from cursory inspection, Israel seems to top your list, with over 20 vetoes in favor; and Syria, with a dozen or so vetoes in favor, seems like a good contender for second place.
Also, Fizz and Philipp are spot on in their comments that sometimes, resolutions don't even get voted on to begin with, because it's clear they'll get a veto. And as point out by Fizz, the stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue. So take these stats with a fistful of salt.
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There are probably no stats exactly for what you ask, but the common examples of often vetoed issues are
the Molotov doctrine of vetoing new UN members (pre-1970) because the UN general assembly didn't have enough votes (two-thirds majority) in favor of admitting the Eastern Europe Soviet-client states (like Albania, Bulgaria, Hungaria, or Romania).
the much more recent and more formal Negroponte doctrine of (US) vetoing unilateral condemnations of Israel in relation to the Palestinian conflict. But informally, a similar US doctrine existed in the 1970s, with its intensity depending on which party held the presidency.
One article says there were 35 USSR vetoes blocking new members; there's one case of USSR casting 15 such vetoes in one day on 13 December 1955. A Security Council's report phrases it (in its longer, research version) as
In the early years, the veto was cast primarily
by the USSR, with a considerable
number of these vetoes used to block the
admission of a new member state due to concerns
about the composition of the General
Assembly in the context of the Cold War.
The formal reason why the General Assembly usually rejected the Soviet clients was a violation of article 4.
Just blocking new admissions, of course, underestimates how many times the USSR vetoed self-servingly.
According to one source, well before the formal Negroponte doctrine, between 1970-1993 the US vetoed a Israel-related resolution 29 times; and that's out of 69 US vetoes in this time frame. How many such votes were cast varied a lot with the US presidency; e.g. a lot fewer were vetoed by the Carter administration (1) compared to Reagan's 18 vetoes. A more recent 2017 article claims that Israel benefited from 43 US vetoes at the UN. Even a Security Council's own report from 2015 says
Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel.
So I guess this bit is not too controversial, statistically.
Also
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 17 vetoes, 12 of which were on Syria. Six of the seven Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela.
So that makes Syria a beneficiary of 18 vetoes recently. Bware however that there's an issue of double counting here, because some of these resolutions, more precisely 6 of the 11 resolutions on Syria vetoed until 2014 (see next source) were actually vetoed jointly by both China and Russia.
There's one 2014 press article by a University of Westminster lecturer with a breakdown by source and "beneficiary".
The data is sourced from the UN (obviously), but I think the breakdown is author's own work, although that's not made terribly clear in the article. The graph clearly excludes the votes against memberships of new countries; that shows you how difficult it is to produce meaningful research on this. And then there's the combined version by issue/beneficiary, but with same caveat:
Also, I'm not sure if the issues with South-Africa and Namibia were entirely distinct given the long lasting South African Border War. Likewise for Southern Rhodesia. I guess someone could cluster these as "South Africa issue(s)". For balance though, the four Israel related-conflicts (with Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria) are also split in that graph.
Resolutions on South Africa issue(s), including those relating to neighboring Namibia and Southern Rhodesia were also sometimes jointly vetoed by the US, UK, and sometimes by France as well. So there's some double or even triple-counting there. E.g. the very first US veto at the UN was actually jointed with that of the UK, on Southern Rhodesia.
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40270%2fwhich-country-benefited-the-most-from-un-security-council-vetoes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can find the list of vetoed resolutions on Wikipedia.
Many of the vetoes are related to the Middle East, with the US or Russia exercising their veto power for the benefit of a local ally. Other regular veto-inducing topics tend to be more localized in time -- vetoes on new memberships, Cyprus conflict, India-Pakistan conflict, South African apartheid, etc.
Cmd+F is a poor proxy to explore the data, because resolutions that benefit e.g. Israel don't always mention the latter explicitly, and you'll need to take the time to massage the data in order to get precise stats. But from cursory inspection, Israel seems to top your list, with over 20 vetoes in favor; and Syria, with a dozen or so vetoes in favor, seems like a good contender for second place.
Also, Fizz and Philipp are spot on in their comments that sometimes, resolutions don't even get voted on to begin with, because it's clear they'll get a veto. And as point out by Fizz, the stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue. So take these stats with a fistful of salt.
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
You can find the list of vetoed resolutions on Wikipedia.
Many of the vetoes are related to the Middle East, with the US or Russia exercising their veto power for the benefit of a local ally. Other regular veto-inducing topics tend to be more localized in time -- vetoes on new memberships, Cyprus conflict, India-Pakistan conflict, South African apartheid, etc.
Cmd+F is a poor proxy to explore the data, because resolutions that benefit e.g. Israel don't always mention the latter explicitly, and you'll need to take the time to massage the data in order to get precise stats. But from cursory inspection, Israel seems to top your list, with over 20 vetoes in favor; and Syria, with a dozen or so vetoes in favor, seems like a good contender for second place.
Also, Fizz and Philipp are spot on in their comments that sometimes, resolutions don't even get voted on to begin with, because it's clear they'll get a veto. And as point out by Fizz, the stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue. So take these stats with a fistful of salt.
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
You can find the list of vetoed resolutions on Wikipedia.
Many of the vetoes are related to the Middle East, with the US or Russia exercising their veto power for the benefit of a local ally. Other regular veto-inducing topics tend to be more localized in time -- vetoes on new memberships, Cyprus conflict, India-Pakistan conflict, South African apartheid, etc.
Cmd+F is a poor proxy to explore the data, because resolutions that benefit e.g. Israel don't always mention the latter explicitly, and you'll need to take the time to massage the data in order to get precise stats. But from cursory inspection, Israel seems to top your list, with over 20 vetoes in favor; and Syria, with a dozen or so vetoes in favor, seems like a good contender for second place.
Also, Fizz and Philipp are spot on in their comments that sometimes, resolutions don't even get voted on to begin with, because it's clear they'll get a veto. And as point out by Fizz, the stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue. So take these stats with a fistful of salt.
You can find the list of vetoed resolutions on Wikipedia.
Many of the vetoes are related to the Middle East, with the US or Russia exercising their veto power for the benefit of a local ally. Other regular veto-inducing topics tend to be more localized in time -- vetoes on new memberships, Cyprus conflict, India-Pakistan conflict, South African apartheid, etc.
Cmd+F is a poor proxy to explore the data, because resolutions that benefit e.g. Israel don't always mention the latter explicitly, and you'll need to take the time to massage the data in order to get precise stats. But from cursory inspection, Israel seems to top your list, with over 20 vetoes in favor; and Syria, with a dozen or so vetoes in favor, seems like a good contender for second place.
Also, Fizz and Philipp are spot on in their comments that sometimes, resolutions don't even get voted on to begin with, because it's clear they'll get a veto. And as point out by Fizz, the stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue. So take these stats with a fistful of salt.
edited 16 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy
14.6k33967
14.6k33967
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
maybe worth pointing out that if there i, for example, a disproportionate amount of resolutions on one country, the chances are they'll get more vetos. Which makes the question a bit pointless.
– Orangesandlemons
14 hours ago
1
1
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
@Orangesandlemons: that's what the last paragraph says for all practical purposes.
– Denis de Bernardy
13 hours ago
1
1
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
It should be pointed out that the Middle Eastern Block of votes is pretty strong in the UN, and these two nations are driving a lot of Middle Eastern Politics.
– hszmv
7 hours ago
add a comment |
There are probably no stats exactly for what you ask, but the common examples of often vetoed issues are
the Molotov doctrine of vetoing new UN members (pre-1970) because the UN general assembly didn't have enough votes (two-thirds majority) in favor of admitting the Eastern Europe Soviet-client states (like Albania, Bulgaria, Hungaria, or Romania).
the much more recent and more formal Negroponte doctrine of (US) vetoing unilateral condemnations of Israel in relation to the Palestinian conflict. But informally, a similar US doctrine existed in the 1970s, with its intensity depending on which party held the presidency.
One article says there were 35 USSR vetoes blocking new members; there's one case of USSR casting 15 such vetoes in one day on 13 December 1955. A Security Council's report phrases it (in its longer, research version) as
In the early years, the veto was cast primarily
by the USSR, with a considerable
number of these vetoes used to block the
admission of a new member state due to concerns
about the composition of the General
Assembly in the context of the Cold War.
The formal reason why the General Assembly usually rejected the Soviet clients was a violation of article 4.
Just blocking new admissions, of course, underestimates how many times the USSR vetoed self-servingly.
According to one source, well before the formal Negroponte doctrine, between 1970-1993 the US vetoed a Israel-related resolution 29 times; and that's out of 69 US vetoes in this time frame. How many such votes were cast varied a lot with the US presidency; e.g. a lot fewer were vetoed by the Carter administration (1) compared to Reagan's 18 vetoes. A more recent 2017 article claims that Israel benefited from 43 US vetoes at the UN. Even a Security Council's own report from 2015 says
Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel.
So I guess this bit is not too controversial, statistically.
Also
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 17 vetoes, 12 of which were on Syria. Six of the seven Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela.
So that makes Syria a beneficiary of 18 vetoes recently. Bware however that there's an issue of double counting here, because some of these resolutions, more precisely 6 of the 11 resolutions on Syria vetoed until 2014 (see next source) were actually vetoed jointly by both China and Russia.
There's one 2014 press article by a University of Westminster lecturer with a breakdown by source and "beneficiary".
The data is sourced from the UN (obviously), but I think the breakdown is author's own work, although that's not made terribly clear in the article. The graph clearly excludes the votes against memberships of new countries; that shows you how difficult it is to produce meaningful research on this. And then there's the combined version by issue/beneficiary, but with same caveat:
Also, I'm not sure if the issues with South-Africa and Namibia were entirely distinct given the long lasting South African Border War. Likewise for Southern Rhodesia. I guess someone could cluster these as "South Africa issue(s)". For balance though, the four Israel related-conflicts (with Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria) are also split in that graph.
Resolutions on South Africa issue(s), including those relating to neighboring Namibia and Southern Rhodesia were also sometimes jointly vetoed by the US, UK, and sometimes by France as well. So there's some double or even triple-counting there. E.g. the very first US veto at the UN was actually jointed with that of the UK, on Southern Rhodesia.
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
add a comment |
There are probably no stats exactly for what you ask, but the common examples of often vetoed issues are
the Molotov doctrine of vetoing new UN members (pre-1970) because the UN general assembly didn't have enough votes (two-thirds majority) in favor of admitting the Eastern Europe Soviet-client states (like Albania, Bulgaria, Hungaria, or Romania).
the much more recent and more formal Negroponte doctrine of (US) vetoing unilateral condemnations of Israel in relation to the Palestinian conflict. But informally, a similar US doctrine existed in the 1970s, with its intensity depending on which party held the presidency.
One article says there were 35 USSR vetoes blocking new members; there's one case of USSR casting 15 such vetoes in one day on 13 December 1955. A Security Council's report phrases it (in its longer, research version) as
In the early years, the veto was cast primarily
by the USSR, with a considerable
number of these vetoes used to block the
admission of a new member state due to concerns
about the composition of the General
Assembly in the context of the Cold War.
The formal reason why the General Assembly usually rejected the Soviet clients was a violation of article 4.
Just blocking new admissions, of course, underestimates how many times the USSR vetoed self-servingly.
According to one source, well before the formal Negroponte doctrine, between 1970-1993 the US vetoed a Israel-related resolution 29 times; and that's out of 69 US vetoes in this time frame. How many such votes were cast varied a lot with the US presidency; e.g. a lot fewer were vetoed by the Carter administration (1) compared to Reagan's 18 vetoes. A more recent 2017 article claims that Israel benefited from 43 US vetoes at the UN. Even a Security Council's own report from 2015 says
Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel.
So I guess this bit is not too controversial, statistically.
Also
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 17 vetoes, 12 of which were on Syria. Six of the seven Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela.
So that makes Syria a beneficiary of 18 vetoes recently. Bware however that there's an issue of double counting here, because some of these resolutions, more precisely 6 of the 11 resolutions on Syria vetoed until 2014 (see next source) were actually vetoed jointly by both China and Russia.
There's one 2014 press article by a University of Westminster lecturer with a breakdown by source and "beneficiary".
The data is sourced from the UN (obviously), but I think the breakdown is author's own work, although that's not made terribly clear in the article. The graph clearly excludes the votes against memberships of new countries; that shows you how difficult it is to produce meaningful research on this. And then there's the combined version by issue/beneficiary, but with same caveat:
Also, I'm not sure if the issues with South-Africa and Namibia were entirely distinct given the long lasting South African Border War. Likewise for Southern Rhodesia. I guess someone could cluster these as "South Africa issue(s)". For balance though, the four Israel related-conflicts (with Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria) are also split in that graph.
Resolutions on South Africa issue(s), including those relating to neighboring Namibia and Southern Rhodesia were also sometimes jointly vetoed by the US, UK, and sometimes by France as well. So there's some double or even triple-counting there. E.g. the very first US veto at the UN was actually jointed with that of the UK, on Southern Rhodesia.
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
add a comment |
There are probably no stats exactly for what you ask, but the common examples of often vetoed issues are
the Molotov doctrine of vetoing new UN members (pre-1970) because the UN general assembly didn't have enough votes (two-thirds majority) in favor of admitting the Eastern Europe Soviet-client states (like Albania, Bulgaria, Hungaria, or Romania).
the much more recent and more formal Negroponte doctrine of (US) vetoing unilateral condemnations of Israel in relation to the Palestinian conflict. But informally, a similar US doctrine existed in the 1970s, with its intensity depending on which party held the presidency.
One article says there were 35 USSR vetoes blocking new members; there's one case of USSR casting 15 such vetoes in one day on 13 December 1955. A Security Council's report phrases it (in its longer, research version) as
In the early years, the veto was cast primarily
by the USSR, with a considerable
number of these vetoes used to block the
admission of a new member state due to concerns
about the composition of the General
Assembly in the context of the Cold War.
The formal reason why the General Assembly usually rejected the Soviet clients was a violation of article 4.
Just blocking new admissions, of course, underestimates how many times the USSR vetoed self-servingly.
According to one source, well before the formal Negroponte doctrine, between 1970-1993 the US vetoed a Israel-related resolution 29 times; and that's out of 69 US vetoes in this time frame. How many such votes were cast varied a lot with the US presidency; e.g. a lot fewer were vetoed by the Carter administration (1) compared to Reagan's 18 vetoes. A more recent 2017 article claims that Israel benefited from 43 US vetoes at the UN. Even a Security Council's own report from 2015 says
Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel.
So I guess this bit is not too controversial, statistically.
Also
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 17 vetoes, 12 of which were on Syria. Six of the seven Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela.
So that makes Syria a beneficiary of 18 vetoes recently. Bware however that there's an issue of double counting here, because some of these resolutions, more precisely 6 of the 11 resolutions on Syria vetoed until 2014 (see next source) were actually vetoed jointly by both China and Russia.
There's one 2014 press article by a University of Westminster lecturer with a breakdown by source and "beneficiary".
The data is sourced from the UN (obviously), but I think the breakdown is author's own work, although that's not made terribly clear in the article. The graph clearly excludes the votes against memberships of new countries; that shows you how difficult it is to produce meaningful research on this. And then there's the combined version by issue/beneficiary, but with same caveat:
Also, I'm not sure if the issues with South-Africa and Namibia were entirely distinct given the long lasting South African Border War. Likewise for Southern Rhodesia. I guess someone could cluster these as "South Africa issue(s)". For balance though, the four Israel related-conflicts (with Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria) are also split in that graph.
Resolutions on South Africa issue(s), including those relating to neighboring Namibia and Southern Rhodesia were also sometimes jointly vetoed by the US, UK, and sometimes by France as well. So there's some double or even triple-counting there. E.g. the very first US veto at the UN was actually jointed with that of the UK, on Southern Rhodesia.
There are probably no stats exactly for what you ask, but the common examples of often vetoed issues are
the Molotov doctrine of vetoing new UN members (pre-1970) because the UN general assembly didn't have enough votes (two-thirds majority) in favor of admitting the Eastern Europe Soviet-client states (like Albania, Bulgaria, Hungaria, or Romania).
the much more recent and more formal Negroponte doctrine of (US) vetoing unilateral condemnations of Israel in relation to the Palestinian conflict. But informally, a similar US doctrine existed in the 1970s, with its intensity depending on which party held the presidency.
One article says there were 35 USSR vetoes blocking new members; there's one case of USSR casting 15 such vetoes in one day on 13 December 1955. A Security Council's report phrases it (in its longer, research version) as
In the early years, the veto was cast primarily
by the USSR, with a considerable
number of these vetoes used to block the
admission of a new member state due to concerns
about the composition of the General
Assembly in the context of the Cold War.
The formal reason why the General Assembly usually rejected the Soviet clients was a violation of article 4.
Just blocking new admissions, of course, underestimates how many times the USSR vetoed self-servingly.
According to one source, well before the formal Negroponte doctrine, between 1970-1993 the US vetoed a Israel-related resolution 29 times; and that's out of 69 US vetoes in this time frame. How many such votes were cast varied a lot with the US presidency; e.g. a lot fewer were vetoed by the Carter administration (1) compared to Reagan's 18 vetoes. A more recent 2017 article claims that Israel benefited from 43 US vetoes at the UN. Even a Security Council's own report from 2015 says
Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel.
So I guess this bit is not too controversial, statistically.
Also
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 17 vetoes, 12 of which were on Syria. Six of the seven Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela.
So that makes Syria a beneficiary of 18 vetoes recently. Bware however that there's an issue of double counting here, because some of these resolutions, more precisely 6 of the 11 resolutions on Syria vetoed until 2014 (see next source) were actually vetoed jointly by both China and Russia.
There's one 2014 press article by a University of Westminster lecturer with a breakdown by source and "beneficiary".
The data is sourced from the UN (obviously), but I think the breakdown is author's own work, although that's not made terribly clear in the article. The graph clearly excludes the votes against memberships of new countries; that shows you how difficult it is to produce meaningful research on this. And then there's the combined version by issue/beneficiary, but with same caveat:
Also, I'm not sure if the issues with South-Africa and Namibia were entirely distinct given the long lasting South African Border War. Likewise for Southern Rhodesia. I guess someone could cluster these as "South Africa issue(s)". For balance though, the four Israel related-conflicts (with Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria) are also split in that graph.
Resolutions on South Africa issue(s), including those relating to neighboring Namibia and Southern Rhodesia were also sometimes jointly vetoed by the US, UK, and sometimes by France as well. So there's some double or even triple-counting there. E.g. the very first US veto at the UN was actually jointed with that of the UK, on Southern Rhodesia.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
FizzFizz
13.8k23287
13.8k23287
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Your answer is much more informative than mine IMHO. +1, and bounty coming your way if OP doesn't accept it.
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
Also, your answers on Politics and History are disgustingly good -- please keep it up. ;-)
– Denis de Bernardy
8 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40270%2fwhich-country-benefited-the-most-from-un-security-council-vetoes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
While some stats might be easy to find, it's not a very interesting question because a lot things don't get put to the Council if there's a threat of veto. The stuff that gets put to a vote in such cases is often a case of using the vote as a public relations venue.
– Fizz
17 hours ago
4
FYI: just for veto counts by country: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg
– Fizz
17 hours ago
2
The problem with such a statistic is that it is difficult to count cases where people realized that it is pointless to propose a specific resolution because it would certainly get vetoed and didn't even try.
– Philipp♦
16 hours ago