Student: Michiru Sugi
Professor: Professor Ahmad Kamal
Subject: Critical Examination of the Charters of the United Nations
Date: September 15, 2002
____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
This paper intends to critically examine whether or not the three amendments to the United Nations Charter are really serving their intended purposes.
So far three formal amendments have been made to the Charter of the United Nations, and all of them relate to the expansion of the UN council membership. In 1965, Article 23 was amended to enlarge the Security Council from eleven to fifteen although its permanent members remained as five. In 1965 and 1973, the membership of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was expanded from eighteen to twenty-seven and from twenty-seven to fifty-four respectively.
According
to Ziring, et al., these amendments were made in
order to respond to the growing demands of underrepresented nations and states
for “a more influential role” and “greater representation” in the UN
policymaking. However, these expansions of the Security Council and ECOSOC do
not fully satisfy such purposes due to the veto, which is enjoyed by the
permanent members of the Security Council. The power of veto is so significant
that one veto can overrule a piece of legislation that is supported by all
other members of the Security Council and the General Assembly. For example, in
1999 China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution seeking to renew the mandate
of the UN preventive force in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The
duty of the force was to prevent a spillover from the ethnic conflict in
Kosovo, and the resolution was supported by all other members of the Security
Council (except for Russia who exercised abstention). However, a veto exercised
by only one nation, out of nearly 200 member states of the United Nations, rejected
this UN measure to ensure the external and internal security of Macedonia. Thus,
the expansions of the ECOSOC or the Security Council may increase opportunities
for underrepresented nations to voice their opinions; however their voices can
be denied by the greater power veto granted to only five countries.
In order
for the amendments to fulfill the intended purposes in substance, a revision of
the veto power should be seriously considered and reflected.