I read this headline on USA Today this morning… “U.N. Security Council strongly condemns North Korea rocket launch”.
Is there any real world impact to a U.N. condemnation? Does there have to be an official condemnation before additional sanctions can be levied, and if not, what’s the point?
Statements like this often help lay the foundation for more specific actions by individual countries or entities. For example, if you want to toughen up sanctions, pointing to language from the UN can help sell the idea to your boss/electorate/allies/funders/etc.
They have no meaning and no effect in and of themselves. They serve only as a warning that you’ve pissed off the rest of the world. That can have consequences. The latter are totally separate from the former, though.
The significance is political, not legal. But, yes, it is significant. “Condemned by the UN”, particularly if it refers to a Security Council resolution, is much more significant than “condemned by South Korea” or “condemned by the US”.
Its not a “UN Resolution”. Its a Resolution of the UN Security Council, and Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are binding on all members.
Sometimes the Council issues Presidial Statements which are not binding… its not clear whether the N Korea one is this or a resolution, since they are commonly confused and lumped together as “resolutions”.
EDIT: I have searched about a bit and it turns out that it is in fact a Presidential Statment
Right- it’s a statement that pretty much EVERY non-pariah or failed state in the world agrees that whatever you did sucks, and is worthy of condemnation.