Is there a process by which the “permanent member” states of the UN which hold veto power could have this power removed, short of voluntary relinquishment?
The Republic of China, which was a “permanent” member of the Security Council, was switched out of the UN and replaced by the People’s Republic of China. I never understood how this came about. But it’s been done before.
Amend the UN charter. It’s happened before, but it does require the SC to participate.
This could be accomplished without the veto power held by permanent members of the SC being used to strike down the attempt?
Ah well that might be a problem, but they don’t need to use the veto.
So if a permanent member state has no desire to relinquish its veto power voluntarily, it will never happen?
Well, it could happen through a bargaining process. I may give up something I would rather keep in return for getting something I haven’t currently got but really, really want, or in order to avert something that would otherwise happen and that I really, really don’t want. But, ultimately, the agreement of the permanent members will be needed in order to limit or remove their veto power.
Of course it could happen, it would just require the formulation of a new UN without that member. Since the SC seat carries political influence within the power structure, by removing the structure you remove the appeal/necessity of that power. The member can then apply to the new organization and acquire whatever influence it can manage. For large economic/military powers that shouldn’t be too hard.
Ultimately, like UDS said, veto holders would need compensation for trading in one of the most influential tokens in international politics.
The General Assembly voted to strip the credentials of the ROC and declared that the PRC was the legitimate holder of that seat in the UN. This apparently doesn’t require Security Council approval, which does make sense. Say that the members of the SDMB pull off their successful coup and state they are the legitimate government. They have all the keys to the nukes and Congress says OK. But if the present day US Ambassador to the UN refuses to leave, there could be a problem.
The U.S. expressed a lot of displeasure over the ROC/PRC switch at the time (1971), but I imagine that Nixon was just paying lip service to the cause at the time as he was already planning his trip to China.
But I’m speculating
Geeze, my memory is slipping; I thought the Nixon to PRC trip was before the switch… :rolleyes: