1

See for example S/2023/776 (let's call it S/B henceforth) which tried to amend S/2023/773 (henceforth S/A). The latter, S/A had not been adopted when S/B was proposed, because it failed a previous vote separately. S/B failed too, but what if had succeeded? Would that have entailed a new vote on the amended text (S/A + S/B) was going to happen next or would the combined (S/A + S/B) text would have been considered adopted already/immediately merely as a result of passing that S/B amendment?

1 Answer 1

2

The question misunderstands the amendment procedure. The amendment referred to in your question, S/2023/776, was voted on by the UNSC before the main vote on S/2023/773. Had the vote on S/2023/776 succeeded, the amendment would have been applied to the text of S/2023/773 to be voted on.

I would point to the meeting report, but it appears to be private. The press release for the meeting explains the procedure though:

Prior to voting on the text, the Council voted on two amendments proposed by the Russian Federation, neither of which were adopted as they failed to obtain the required number of votes. The first amendment [S/2023/776], proposed above the first operative paragraph, would have called for an immediate and fully respected humanitarian ceasefire, while the second [S/2023/775] would have called for the insertion of a new operative paragraph unequivocally condemning indiscriminate attacks against civilians, as well as against civilian objects in the Gaza Strip resulting in civilian casualties, in particular the strike against Al Ahli Arab Hospital.

1
  • I see. I had incorrectly assumed because of their higher number and the order in the UN page that the vote on the amendments happened after 773. Oct 23, 2023 at 10:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .