72

Many countries consider themselves allies of the US, but few take foreign policy stances just because the US says so. (The US also does not always vote the same way as its allies.) The vast majority of the world consider the US embargo to be an act of revenge driven by the interests of Cuban Americans, and others who had property confiscated at the time of ...


56

I'm not even sure in what year that vote you mention was taken, because it's a UN tradition by now The UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 ...


42

Other answers focus on the US-Israeli relationship, but there is also no love lost between Cuba and Israel. Cuba sent troops to fight Israel in the Yom Kippur War after breaking relations the previous month; neither side chose to restore formal relations. Cuba continued supporting Palestinian guerrillas (like the PLO) until the collapse of the Soviet bloc. ...


34

Article 23 of the charter: "The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council." So long as the UK continues to ...


26

Yes The first and most obvious method is based on the UN charter, Article VI, which says in its entirety: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Obviously, if ...


23

According to wikipedia, this is the first time. Even in the 1990s, after the Cold War ended and when Russian political power was greatly reduced, the US and Russia never vetoed together.


22

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, ...


16

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 ...


15

The UN Charter does not provide for any way for a country to be removed from the UNSC. This is the case for both the permanent members (of which France and China are two, as well as the US, UK and Russia) and the non-permanent members (who serve two-year terms). The only way that a non-permanent member can be removed mid-term, or a permanent member can be ...


14

Wikipedia has the complete list of vetoes. France, UK, US joined force: twice in 1989 regarding Panama and Libya; in 1986 regarding Libya; 4 times in 1981 regarding Namibia; 3 times in 1977 regarding South Africa; in 1976 regarding Namibia; in 1975 regarding Namibia; in 1974 regarding South Africa.


11

Wikipedia has a list of state mergers. Many of the mergers are the result of war or were, at best, flawed democracies. Almost by definition, if a country is merging with another, they are not "stable". From Wikipedia's list I offer some examples that you may consider: The merger of Newfoundland (a British dependency-dominion) with Canada (a fully ...


11

The right of the 5 permanent member of the Security Council to veto its decisions is enshrined in Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations: 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 Because this is part of the ...


9

The rules don't provide any directive on order of languages. It seems likely that the order is "Alphabetical in English". So Arabic (the only right-to-left language is placed first (on the right). Then the left-to-right languages are in alphabetical order Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish, from left-to-right The rules of procedure of the security ...


9

Germany in 1990. While presented as (re)unification, technically it was the German Democratic Republic voluntarily joining the Federal Republic of Germany. By that time, even though DDR still had "Democratic" in the name, it was a reasonably democratic country by all accepted standards. There were other unifications throughout the history, but mostly the ...


8

Perhaps because (at least in the US) marijuana has a much greater number of users than other drugs, and a still larger base of people who regard it as basically harmless even if they don't care to use it themselves. That has led to increased popular support, which over time has become strong enough in some states to get legalization initiatives on the ...


7

Migration is controversial so the compact is controversial. If one of the basis of your political discourse is that immigration is the root of all social evils, painting the compact that as a threat that will force governments to accept immigrants against their will gives for some political points when you reject it1. So, rejecting the compact would appeal ...


7

The UN and IMF both include China in their lists of developing economies as of 2018. The WTO has no official list of developed/developing countries, it's up to member nations to announce that they are developing countries and it is up to other members to challenge those members' attempts to use provisions offered to developing countries. Here is a UN report ...


7

Problem: Who represents the United Kingdom? The UK would still be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but who represents it? Scotland and Northern Island could leave the United Kingdom and accept that the state composed of England and Wales continues to constitute the United Kingdom or at least its legal successor with respect to its role in the ...


7

What was the legal basis for the arrest of Gerald Bull by the UN in South Africa? The basis was UN Security Council Resolution 418: United Nations Security Council Resolution 418, adopted unanimously on 4 November 1977, imposed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. This resolution differed from the earlier Resolution 282, which was only ...


7

The closest would probably be that the UN security council would make such a decision (=send help without being requested). While I guess "technically" a security council meeting would be arranged by "UN", for a non-scheduled one to be called, it would require some country to bring up the urgent matter (fire) to the council. Also, I think that to consider ...


7

First, it seems this was not a real/open veto, but what is called a hidden veto, i.e. one or more Permanent members of the UNSC expressing disagreement on the wording, so that no actual voting takes place. Unlike some Turkish sources, the Washington Post does not mention a veto having been exercised, but does note that both the US and Russia disagreed with ...


6

The Paris Accords aren't legally binding. You do the best the you can and that's it. The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their ...


5

In short, the UN has nothing to do with referendums. A group of people can't "go to the UN and declare a binding referendum". A country can choose to run a referendum, which may be binding or not according to its own constitutional arrangements. Other countries may choose to recognise a region as an independent country (or not). The UN only expresses the ...


5

The primary reason why the United Nations has a UN Security Council with five permanent members with vetoes is that the League of Nations did not have such a mechanism and failed. The basic problem is that without the veto, the international organization can pass things over the protests of the major powers. But then the major powers simply ignore those ...


5

Not without removing the member from the UN itself, which would still require a Security Council vote. Disagreeing with another answer, the voting procedure quoted there does require "the concurring votes of the permanent members", so the 10 non-permanent members by themselves could not pass the resolution if any permanent member vetoed it. Given there are ...


5

It depends by what you mean by "acts alone". You seem rather unaware of the level of moral support she and the broader school-strikes-for-climate movement has received: On 31 January 2019, more than 3400 scientists and academics signed an open letter in support of the school strikes in Belgium.[97] The letter reads "On the basis of the facts supplied by ...


4

It turns out it happened at least twice in relation to Namibia and respectively South Africa, as a 1975 report says The mailing says the USA, Britain and France today exercised their veto power in the United Nations Security Council in behalf of South Africa and against an assertion of UN rights in Namibia and of the rights of the Namibian people to ...


4

James' answer covers the legalities pretty succinctly. Technically, however, the POTUS could kick the UN Headquarters out of New York, by "simply" unilaterally withdrawing the US from any and all United Nations memberships and treaties -- at which point the US would no longer be bound by the UNHQ agreement and could tell them to piss off. Of course, the ...


4

One could also claim that the Republic of Texas is an example (independence from Mexico as a sovereign state 1836, became a State of the USA 1846). It only existed for ten years, and already contained a very large percentage of US citizens, so merger with the USA might have been considered inevitable. Wikipedia notes that: After gaining their ...


4

In the UN General Assembly and Security Council, delegates of the member states vote as they are ordered by their national governments. How the national governments come to their decision is their sovereign matter. Calling that a "popularity contest" presumes that all governments are totally unprincipled; I wouldn't go that far. In the UNSC, five nations ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible