II. The Yalta Voting Formula

Abstract

Toward the close of the San Francisco Conference, Czechoslovakia's Jan Masaryk remarked that his feeling toward the new Charter “was much like that of the father fondly awaiting the birth of a son. The baby finally arrives and it turns out to be a girl. At first the father is somewhat disappointed, but he soon learns to like her just the same.” While the delegates as a whole believed that their work would go down in history as one of the great documents of all times, many no doubt shared Masaryk's view. For when a document as comprehensive as the Charter is framed, no one gets exactly what he wants.The article of the Charter that raised the most controversy at San Francisco and the article that epitomizes the nature of the Organization, perhaps more than any other, is the Yalta formula for voting in the Security Council. So heated did the debate on this issue become that Room 223 in the Veterans Building, where the meetings of Committee III/l were held, was dubbed the “Madison Square Garden” of San Francisco. The frankness and candor with which the delegates exchanged views constitutes, in many respects, a good example of international democracy in action.It is the purpose of this paper to review the action taken at San Francisco with respect to the Yalta voting formula and to point out the relationship of that formula to the special position of the great powers in the new Organization.

Executing War Captives Based on Maslahat: Reflecting on and Concluding the Contemporary Debate

“…When the international community's big powers, for better or worse, decide to punish a nation or a group, they would do so with great might. There is much ongoing debate on the extent in which the United Nations (especially the UN Security Council) is biased in performing its duties (Anghie, 2004;Deplano, 2015), when the organization itself has quite a dark history in its establishment (Wilcox, 1945). However, the reality remains that the UN comprise certain member states which wield a massive amount of political, economic, and military strength.…”

UN SECURITY COUNCIL: The ‘Frozen’ Victory of the Great Powers

“…The need to accept the realities of power politics is argued to be re lected at the SC and the equality of the member states is told to be re lected in the General Assembly (Heywood, 2011). Wilcox (1945) argued that the SC operationalized itself by allocating permanent seats and veto to the great powers of the time. It was supposed that the most signi icant reason for the League's failure was its inability to enforce its decisions and the SC was regarded as the main instrument to overcome the impotency of the League of Nations with the privileges provided for its permanent ive members (P5) (Hilderbrand, 1990).…”

American Psychological Isolationism

“…Americans also have a long history of distrust in and conflict with the League of Nations' successor organization, the United Nations. The U.S. joined the United Nations as a founding member in 1945 on the strict condition it could veto any meaningful U.N. action (Moore & Pubantz, 2006; Wilcox, 1945). In the last 20 years America has accounted for 12 of 17 cases in which a member nation cast the sole dissenting vote on a Security Council resolution.…”