Post available to Premium Members only. Please upgrade your account in order to apply.
Few days ago, me & some of my fellas had a major debate and discussion on different parts of Rules of Procedures. So, I thought I need to clarify a few points and shed light to them to remove confusion with proper and valid precedents and arguments.
What is it?
A Presidential Statement is often created when the United Nations Security Council cannot reach consensus or are prevented from passing a resolution by a permanent member's veto, or threat thereof. Such statements are similar in content, format, and tone to resolutions, but are not legally binding.
But, there are some instances where if other committees of UN face the same problems and fail to reach decision/conclusion, the Head/Chairperson/President can release similar kind of statement.
Why the confusion?
For example, Trump gave a statement through the white house press. Now, the NY Times publishes a news saying that the US presidential statement included indication of violence against DPRK. That is indeed a presidential statement but NOT IN UN!
Why it is redundant to have in UN?
A private/public communique can be sent via a delegate from an official/executive/cabinet/ministry/national body of a country in written/verbal format (mostly in crisis/emergency situations, otherwise they don’t have time for this). A president/prime minister/king/queen is the highest executive of a country. When these executives have such options, usage of a presidential statement for them is redundant and invalid.
Can an amendment be Vetoed?
Yes, according to Article 27, Section 2 and 3 of the UN Charter, in Security Council, procedural matters require 9 votes out of 15 but substantive matters (that includes ammendments) require 9 votes out of 15 including the concurring votes of all permanent members.
Amendments of the UN Charter itself:
According to Article 108 of the Charter, amendments must be adopted by two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
So, yes amendments in SC can be vetoed and for other committees, two third majority is required to pass an amendment.
Article 30! Provisional ROP? What is that?
Since 1954 to 2009, there are 10 instances where the security council adopted a special/provisional ROP. But, that has nothing to do with whether or not by stating this article you can/cannot veto an amendment. Those were for special/emergency scenarios to speed up the committee to make it more efficient. I had implemented a similar emergency situation in HSC, SMUN2017. However, in 1946, the SC did implement its first provisional ROP and the latest revision was made in 1982. According to Chapter VII, Rule 40 of the latest revision, voting in the Security Council shall be in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter and of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. So, no exception whether or not you implement Article 30.
Can a peace treaty be signed in the security council?
Yes! Article 39 of the United Nations Charter states that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Bilateral issues cannot be discussed in UN but there have been many instances that to reduce international threat and increase security, security council members did sign peace treaties/decided to sign peace treaties/indicated peace treaties during meeting/in the resolution. Also, under Article 26 of the UN Charter, in order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee, plans to be submitted to the UN members for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.
Summoning the Secretary General:
If a point of order is raised against the chairperson and the chairperson does not comply with that and the delegate is not satisfied with the clarification, the secretary general may be called to address the point of order. However, if a delegate believes that, a chairperson is not eligible to run the committee, a motion to impeach the chairperson from the committee might be raised and the secretary general might be called to address the motion. The delegate who raised the motion and the defending chairperson both should get the floor to clarify their positions and then a formal voting of two-third majority (substantive matter) is required to pass the motion. If the motion passes, the secretary general has to find a replacement for the position or may promote the vice chair.
Hope these help remove all confusions! Cheers!