# UN veto removal **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643 "2004-12-13T20:03:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/1 "2004-12-13T20:03:37Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/2 "2004-12-13T20:11:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/3 "2004-12-13T20:17:05Z")
Amend the UN charter. It’s happened before, but it does require the SC to participate. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/4 "2004-12-13T20:38:46Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/5 "2004-12-13T21:00:48Z")
Ah well that might be a problem, but they don’t need to use the veto. > [@](#): > > Article 108 > > ``` > Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/6 "2004-12-13T21:27:57Z")
So if a permanent member state has no desire to relinquish its veto power voluntarily, it will never happen? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/7 "2004-12-14T00:54:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/8 "2004-12-14T03:28:15Z")
> [@Fuji Kitakyusho](#): > > So if a permanent member state has no desire to relinquish its veto power voluntarily, it will never happen? 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. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/9 "2004-12-14T03:46:48Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > 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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-veto-removal/279643/10 "2004-12-29T22:59:33Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > 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: