Veto powers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council be abolished Period 5
The 5 should lose veto powers
Side Score: 55
|
 |
The 5 should keep veto powers
Side Score: 25
|
|
|
|
|
8
points
The 5 countries apart of the security council should lose veto powers for many reasons. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the United Nations "ineptitude" on what he says is "unjust structure" urging that the united councils be abolished. He said, "Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized." http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
2
points
I agree that the 5 members of the Security Council should lose their veto powers because countries like Iran, who is not part of the council, barely have a say on topics that could benefit their country. Veto power only limits the capability the UN has to help the world improve and stop anything before major damage is created, which has already happened. URL: http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
The 5 countries in the security council should not have veto power because it does not give all the countries in the United Nations a chance to vote to decide in a situation. In Syria some of the deadliest situations are happening and "its is paralyzed by disagreement and veto's". Because of veto power the problems are either unsolved or solved in a very slow manner. Veto power should not be given to the security council for this reason. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
1
point
The 5 permanent UN Security council members should not have veto power for many reasons. If one of the 5 members, Russia, China, USA, France, or the United Kingdom disagrees with an idea, then it will not pass. This prevents any major changes against one of the 5 countries from happening, even if everyone else agrees. Iran president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, describes the veto power as, " an advantage that grants impunity to aggression and occupation." Ahmadinejad also states that, " Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege." Iran is not apart of the permanent 5 making it hard to have a say in the votes. Veto power should be abolished. URL http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
The 5 permanent Security Council members of the UN should not have veto powers for many reasons. Veto power prevents many abilities the UN has that can help certain areas. For example, if one of the five countries disagrees with an idea or action, it will not go through. Veto power limits areas to have large and beneficial changes, even if the majority of the council is in agreement. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, states, “The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation. How could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?”. Iran, who is not part of the Security Council, does not have a say as big as a permanent member of the Security Council, making very hard to take part in any major changes. Countries part of the Security Council should not have veto privilege. URL: http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
I personally think that the five UN security council members should lose their veto power, for a few reasons. First off, only they get veto power to their advantage, and most other countries don't get their say on what THEY want. There's no equality. Second, issues like the Syrian War would've ended right now, if Russia didn't support Assad, that is. They just vetoed the order to help the Syrian War calm down, and look where that's gotten us. Finally, the 5 just use veto power for THEMSELVES. They want it for THEIR country, not for the OTHER countries. They don't care about THEM. They can't be selfish and get what THEY want every time. They need to care about EVERYONE. That's why I think that the UN should abolish veto power for the five, so that way EVERYONE can be happy. Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
But making a superpower like Russia or China feel like they can't win because they are overwhelmed could result in Russia or China going to war which would be devastating. The small countries are important but the large countries are more important because of how powerful they are. Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
1
point
1
point
The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council should not have veto power because some of the countries are not even the most powerful. For example, Germany and Japan are very powerful countries, but they cannot be eligible for the veto powers because they lost WWII. The UN Security Council should focus on the most powerful countries now and have them get a bigger say. Just because things have happened in the past with those countries, that should not impact what is happening now. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
1
point
the united nations security council power of veto should be eliminated because veto power does not apply to "procedural" votes, as determined by the permanent members themselves. The permanent members can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution without blocking its adoption by the Council. A negative vote by a permanent member will also block the selection of a Secretary-General, although this is a "recommendation" to the General Assembly rather than a Resolution. The unconditional veto possessed by the five governments has been seen by critics as the most undemocratic character of the UN.http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
|
5
points
The security council should have veto power because it has the ability to settle disagreements. The presentment members have "wisdom" unlike the other temporary members of the United Nations. Having veto power also "motivates to make balanced decisions. This is why the security council should keep veto power. Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
2
points
Instead of having powers to settle disagreements and being under the pressure of stating the truth, they should have all of their activities and positions taken in the power of the General Assembly. http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
2
points
I agree, because the right to veto power can have some effects. For example, the 5 countries are not the most powerful in the world so they should not have the most power in the group. Also, taking away veto power could make the U.N. more equally fair and may be more welcoming to other countries. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
I agree that veto power has the ability to settle disagreements. The veto power creates a need to think deeper into the decision. Veto power keeps the "SC members together and motivates the council to make balanced decisions," According to the RT news. Veto power can stop bad decisions from being made and more agreements to happen. URL Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
The five main countries in the UN security council should keep VETO power because having the power taken away would make Russia and China not have a large voice because the U.S., France, and England would likely always win against them. The result would be 2 major world powers unhappy which could end in a disaster.http://theconversation.com/ Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
1
point
This is not always true because the countries with the 2 year position would also have an equal say, and that could change whether Russia and China were right or if the U.S., France and England were right. Also, this would make the system more fair because China and Russia still have the benefit of being a permanent member, so they would have a say every year. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
We should keep the 5.The UN was founded in 1945 and the five SC members were the winners in WWII. Of course, it is in their best interest that they keep their SC seats and their vetoes even though 70 years have passed. While there have been efforts to get other countries on the SC, it does not seem likely that the makeup of the SC will change soon. Basically the SC members have an interest in keeping their privileges, and have been willing to wield their veto to protect it. Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
I agree that the UN security council permanent 5 have had power to veto for a long time, but that is no reason for it to stay that way. Other countries that do not have the veto power do not have as much of an influence on votes, which could cause problems. The veto power makes decisions take longer to go through because of the constant conflict of votes, therefore it is a problem. URL http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
1
point
But, one of these five countries are considering withdrawing their place in the Security Council and starting to go against veto power. http://www.un.org/apps/news/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
Even though the 5 members have been in the organization for 70 years, that does not mean that things should not change. The 5 Security Council members have vetoed hundreds of times since they joined the council, pushing their limits and privilege. Countries like Syria are limited to what they can say and do to help their country. URL: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/02/ Side: The 5 should lose veto powers
The United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia should keep their spots in the veto because they would all have to agree on to leave the veto. Also if the U.S left, their diplomatic power in the UN would be gone and they might be dominated by Russia and China. Answer 2: "If the U.S left, suddenly all their diplomatic power in the UN would be diminished and they run the risk of it being dominated by Russia and China. Answer 1: "However, for such a change to happen the resolution would have to be passed by all members of the P5." Source: Quora.com Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
The 5 countries in the security council should keep veto powers because people should be able to have to do what they need to do. the security council makes the decision to decide what goes on. they should keep veto power cause then things are going to get bad. this is why they should keep veto power. source- www.globalpolicy.org Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
1
point
The 5 should keep veto powers because it has been used to prevent war. There hasn't been a world war since the Security Council was created, and it should remain the same to prevent world wars in the future. Side: The 5 should keep veto powers
|
