.png/482px-West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements).png)
Both the United States and Israel voted against the resolution, which passed by a 138-9 margin. The United Kingdom and forty other countries abstained.
Palestinian President Abbas characterized the vote as crucial to the two-state solution, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Clinton declared the move a step backwards in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The measure is largely symbolic, but does allow a Palestinian delegate to hold the floor in debates in the General Assembly. Votes on full membership are subject to veto by the permanent members of the Security Council, a power the US exercised last year to prevent the full accession of Palestine.
Implications?
The implication is that the UN is a relatively multilateral intergovernmental organization, despite the fact it grants the five permanent members with superior authority. Certain resolution can still pass even against the will of the most powerful state in this unipolar system.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree. Although the UN is an international organization that consists of 193 member states, the United States, Great Britain, China, Russia, and France are the only states who hold the power to veto (absolute veto). These states hold an unfair amount of power in comparison to the other states in the UN. These states have the ability to block certain UN actions even if the majority of the states vote in favor of the action. The fact that the United States has the veto power has serious implications for Palestine. Currently, as long as the United States holds the veto power it is unlikely Palestine will obtain full membership in the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your contributions, Maria.
Delete