I read that to mean that, if a member of the security council is involved in a matter that may require UN action, it cannot vote, since this would obviously bring into question the impartiality and motivations of the Security Council.
An example: Mexico is currently on the Security Council. Let’s say Mexico invades Belize, and starts ‘ethnically cleansing’ the place. The Security Council might decide that it should consider intervening, but Mexico is not allowed to vote.
LC, I offered no specific criticism of GB’s Parliament in my remarks, nor am I ready -particularly in this thread- to analyze whether such a parliamentary system best reflects either the will or the interests of the people. My objection is to the idea that, in matters of immediate high effect on the security and wellbeing of the country, such as the present exercise against Iraq, the public interest as perceived by the representatives of the people should by default supercede the widely expressed and determined will of those people.