It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Syria: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 “Uniting for Peace”? Why Not?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 05:47 PM
I have been doing some research with regards to getting a legal mandate to take action via using the UN route and I came across this:-

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 A,[1] the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time the General Assembly may meet using the mechanism of the emergency special session.

The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson Plan"—was adopted 3 November 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).[2]

In it, the General Assembly:

"Reaffirming the importance of the exercise by the Security Council of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the duty of the permanent members to seek unanimity and to exercise restraint in the use of the veto," ...

"Recognizing in particular that such failure does not deprive the General Assembly of its rights or relieve it of its responsibilities under the Charter in regard to the maintenance of international peace and security," ...

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session" (ESS),[3] which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council—the so-called "P5"—do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.

Emergency special sessions have been convened under this procedure on ten occasions, with the most recent convened in 1997. However, unlike preceding ESSs, the tenth ESS has been 'adjourned' and 'resumed' on numerous occasions, over the past several years, and remains adjourned. Indeed, more than ten separate 'meetings' have been held by the Assembly, whilst sitting in tenth ESS, since 2000.[4]

While the "emergency special session" framework was established by resolution A/RES/377 A, the UN Charter always contained provisions for "special sessions",[5] which, according to the General Assembly's current "Rules of Procedure",[6] can be called within fifteen days of a request being received by the Secretary-General.

What it means is that if all main five security members are not in agreement then they may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security. So if Russia and China are blocking the resolution put forward then they can use United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377a and form a coalition within the security council and use that resolution then to proceed.

More info...

On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title “Uniting for Peace”. The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea. At the initial stage of this armed conflict, in June 1950, the Security Council had been able to recommend to the Members of the United Nations to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area” (resolution 83 (1950) of 27 June 1950). The resolution could be passed because the USSR, at that time, boycotted the meetings of the Security Council with the aim of obtaining the allocation of the permanent Chinese seat to the communist Government in Beijing. It assumed that in its absence the Security Council would not be able to discharge its functions since Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter provides that substantive resolutions of the Security Council require an affirmative vote of nine members “including the concurring votes of the permanent members”. The majority of the members of the Security Council, however, were of the view that absence from the meeting room could not prevent the key organ of the United Nations from acting validly, a view that was later endorsed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports 1971, p. 16, at para. 22). Given that its protests remained fruitless, the USSR sent again, as from August 1950, a delegation to the meetings of the Council which cast a negative vote on a United States draft resolution condemning the continued defiance of the United Nations by the North Korean authorities. In order to overcome this impasse, the United States, under the leadership of its Foreign Secretary Dean Acheson, succeeded in persuading the General Assembly that it should claim for itself a subsidiary responsibility with regard to international peace and security, as enunciated by Article 14 of the Charter. The result of these efforts was resolution 377 A (V).

edit on 26-8-2013 by jroduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 06:01 PM
There one big problem with this.

No one takes the UN seriously, especially not America.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by snapperski

Well thats the thing isn't it. I understand them not taking them seriously. A good example is the Genocide in Rwanda when 2 million peole where killed in two days. Then there is Bosnia where any where killed as 'peace keepers' looked on and where not able to do anything as it was not in there UN mandate.

The reason why the UN was setup was to keep peace and to respond to actions of the nature that is happening in Syria. I am finding all this 'we cannot go the UN route' a little suspicius. They can go the UN route and they can get a leagle binding resolution even if all of the permenant members are not in agreement or veto the resolution. The actions that has been carried out in Syria would warrant a resolution 377a.

I am sure they have qualified diplomats that know about these things??

Maybe not??
edit on 26-8-2013 by jroduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2013 by jroduk because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 06:11 PM
Maybe they should rename this to "How we can attack anyone whenever we want"

or maybe "Syria is toast now"

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by jroduk

Nothing is going to stop Israel/America going after regime change in Syria, Israel /America have been planning this for well over decade. It's going to happen regardless of the human cost as they see it as securing there future existence, our opinions and beliefs have no weight over the oil addicts and banking megalomaniacs Israel/America running this planet.

Here's a great article from 2003 by Dr Hooman Peimani a international relations expert in Geneva.

Oil pipelines are a highly vulnerable means of exporting oil, requiring a predictable long-term reliability of the countries through which they pass. Knowing this, the Israelis can only begin their technical assessment of the pipeline once they are convinced that the existing political barriers can be overcome. This requires new regimes in Baghdad and Damascus.

The real reason Syria is of such importance to western powers.

posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by snapperski

Oil the blood that flows though TPTB viens. Black gold!

I would like to say it takes a entity without pasion, without morality, without heart, without spirit and lacking in something that they are not and that is true Humanity. They think about one thing Money greed and power!

There is a REASON why the USA and the western world needs to go to the United Nations and get a mandate to sanction the use of force. That way the USA and its allies have nothing to hide! The faliure to seek a posative and binding mandate at the United Nation will prove to the whole world that the United States and its alies have something to hide.

Here is a video of Kerrys speach. Count how many times he says REASON!

All I am saying is this is very strange and does not add up! I am not anti American also I am not anti Assad.

I do not support Assad but in my opinion he is the best of many Evils in that country. We should be working with Assad to gain control of the country then we can send in Un peacekeepers then we can work on a political framework for a transition to a new leader and a new democracy. I think what we will get is the opposite a gung ho attitude and remove assad by force and then see a vacumm that is already full of the rubbish called Al Ciada.

Stuppid thing but a anagram of evils is Elvis. Well hes left the building and its giong to be:-

edit on 27-8-2013 by jroduk because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in