Can the United Nations (Security Council) sanction/impose sanctions on the United States?

If, for instance (but not limited to this), the United States engages in an unjustified, unwarranted and unpermitted conflict against a sovereign and independent state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, can the UN Security Council impose sanctions on the United States? The same with the EU - can the EU also impose sanctions against the USA, either alongside the UNSC or independently?

International Peace and Security - Sanctions

The UNSC having 15 members for instance, a resolution for example would require nine votes to pass. EDIT: UNSC has five permanent members: US, Russia, China, France and the UK. A veto of just one nation (i.e. the USA) would render any resolution etc moot...

United Nations Security Council - UN Sanctions

Is this really unfeasible?

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

That is a very good question, but sadly the US is above the law. It has rejected the International Criminal Court for very good reasons--many criminals hold high office and could be indicted for crimes against humanity.

It will be a cold day in hell before the UN, corrupt itself by many standards, holds the feet to the fire.

That's not how the security council works. If any one of the 5 permanent members vetoes the measure, it fails, regardless of what the total vote is. The US is one of the permanent 5 members. It would veto any measure against it.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

The United Nations Security Council "veto power" refers to the power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto any "substantive" resolution.

The US being a permanent member, could veto.
So no.
Wikipedia

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

That is a very good question, but sadly the US is above the law. It has rejected the International Criminal Court for very good reasons--many criminals hold high office and could be indicted for crimes against humanity.

It will be a cold day in hell before the UN, corrupt itself by many standards, holds the feet to the fire.

The US rejected the ICC because of something called "sovereignty." Look it up.

originally posted by: face23785
That's not how the security council works. If any one of the 5 permanent members vetoes the measure, it fails, regardless of what the total vote is. The US is one of the permanent 5 members. It would veto any measure against it.

Good point about the veto. So, essentially, the UN would be "powerless" to "do" anything.

The European Union, however...

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Sure they can.

But they know who their Daddy is, so they won't.

With that being said, Iran is not our problem. Let Israel and SA deal with them if they need to. They're big boys, they can take care of themselves.

a reply to: Salander

International Criminal Court

Yes , the US is a sovereign nation and has it's own court system
So , the US cannot sign away it's own court system to a piece of "work" (and everyone knows the word i really mean) power and money hungry corrupt globalist organization who have never managed to get anything right in their entire history .
Get it ?
End Rant.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

heck isn't the US THE united nations? Kind of strange that the united nations doesn't do a damn thing about anything right?

I am sure they can try. Then we can quit protecting them from Russia taking over Europe. That only sounds fair. Russia could take over Europe in two years if the US did not protect them. If we allowed Russia to Nuke the capitals of those countries and destroy their military they would not be putting sanctions on the US anymore.

I am not saying that is a good thing, but Europe should start respecting the USA and we should not abuse the respect and we all should act civil to each other. Iran and some of the hot head countries do not act civil.

We are not at war with Russia, they are not our enemy just because they are different thinking than we are. Now the Muslims do not like the US much and many of them would destroy us if they could. They would like to take over our country and force us to accept Islam.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: face23785
That's not how the security council works. If any one of the 5 permanent members vetoes the measure, it fails, regardless of what the total vote is. The US is one of the permanent 5 members. It would veto any measure against it.

Good point about the veto. So, essentially, the UN would be "powerless" to "do" anything.

The European Union, however...

I wouldn't count on the EU to do anything beyond token measures. They need us more than we need them.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
If, for instance (but not limited to this), the United States engages in an unjustified, unwarranted and unpermitted conflict against a sovereign and independent state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, can the UN Security Council impose sanctions on the United States? The same with the EU - can the EU also impose sanctions against the USA, either alongside the UNSC or independently?

International Peace and Security - Sanctions

The UNSC having 15 permanent members for instance, a resolution for example would require nine votes to pass.

United Nations Security Council - UN Sanctions

Is this really unfeasible?

You could ask the same question regarding Russia, China, France, or any of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. They all hold veto power.

While I'm all for the US, I still feel this is a built-in weakness of the UN. If we (and the whole f'ing world) are going to buy into a world government of sorts, there shouldn't be those who are more equal than others - to paraphrase Orwell.

I'm anti-UN by the way. That's just one reason why.

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

heck isn't the US THE united nations? Kind of strange that the united nations doesn't do a damn thing about anything right?

It's the veto that will essentially make the UN "powerless" should the US decide to wage a war without permission, justification or due process.

Even if the UK, France, China and Russia vote in favour of some resolution or other, the US...

UNSC - Members (Present and future; Permanent and Non-Permanent)

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The UNSC having 15 permanent members for instance...

TThe UNSC has FIVE permanent members. Each can veto any resolution. Trying to target a permanent member would not work.

Countries can level sanctions at each other if they like - the UK has voluntary embargoes on the sales of arms to some countries, for instance.

More significant sanctions by countries acting in harmony are levelled at places like Russia for their continued belligerence and misbehaviour, and places like Iran and North Korea. Many Muslim nations have prohibitions in dealing with Israel. If any country wanted to level sanctions at the US then they don't need the UNSC to do so, but don't the US would notice.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The UNSC having 15 permanent members for instance...

TThe UNSC has FIVE permanent members. Each can veto any resolution. Trying to target a permanent member would not work.

Countries can level sanctions at each other if they like - the UK has voluntary embargoes on the sales of arms to some countries, for instance.

More significant sanctions by countries acting in harmony are levelled at places like Russia for their continued belligerence and misbehaviour, and places like Iran and North Korea. Many Muslim nations have prohibitions in dealing with Israel. If any country wanted to level sanctions at the US then they don't need the UNSC to do so, but don't the US would notice.

Yes, my mistake. Must have gotten mixed up. Should edit the OP...

The veto of the USA would of course render the UN "powerless"...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

That is a very good question, but sadly the US is above the law. It has rejected the International Criminal Court for very good reasons--many criminals hold high office and could be indicted for crimes against humanity.

It will be a cold day in hell before the UN, corrupt itself by many standards, holds the feet to the fire.

That's because America would have been tried for war crimes long ago.

Oddly enough, since WWII the US hasn't been at peace ever. It's crimes against humanity span from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria, Yemen, Djibouti, Haiti, Afghanistan, the gulf in general.. Abu grhaib, Panama... The list goes on.

One day it will stop.

a reply to: odzeandennz

I think the sabre-rattling with Iran should be the last straw. However, as we have all been reminded here, the UN(SC) would essentially be "powerless" in any event the US decides to "go in, all guns blazing"...

a reply to: odzeandennz

You forgot to add France, UK, Spain, Isreal, etc. to the list. Placing all the blame on the US is being deceitful.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: face23785
That's not how the security council works. If any one of the 5 permanent members vetoes the measure, it fails, regardless of what the total vote is. The US is one of the permanent 5 members. It would veto any measure against it.

Good point about the veto. So, essentially, the UN would be "powerless" to "do" anything.

The European Union, however...

Even if it weren’t for the veto they couldn’t do much, if anything.

Impose sanctions? Sure. Enforce them? No. Two very different things.

World reserves currency, a dominate cultural, ideological and technological mark on this world and greatest military power.

The short answer is, No.

However, the time of SuperPowers is over with and we enter an age of a Multi-Polaric world. What you got is what you got and the US leads that.