Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PF April 24' - Sample Con Case
PF April 24' - Sample Con Case
Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership on its Security
Council.
Our Sole Contention is Power
Subpoint A - Nuclear War
Rahman, again, wrote in 23 Rahman, Sami Ur, Syeda Nosheen Bukhari, and Nasir Zaman. "ABOLISHING
VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL; FOR BETTER OR WORSE?." Pakistan Journal
of International Affairs 6.4 (2023)] [thiele]
[https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/download/932/649] [Sami Ur Rahman = Associate Professor
of Law, The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan; Bukhari = Principal, Peace International School, Multan,
Pakistan; Zaman = Freelancer/Academic Writer, Law Graduate from Bahria University Islamabad]
In 1993, Australian unfamiliar writer Gareth Evans wrote that the veto power was laid out to guarantee
that the powerful assembled countries didn't focus on things it would not be able to finish because of
extraordinary power resistance (Schindlmayr, 2001).
Rahman, again, wrote in 23 Rahman, Sami Ur, Syeda Nosheen Bukhari, and Nasir Zaman. "ABOLISHING
VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL; FOR BETTER OR WORSE?." Pakistan Journal
of International Affairs 6.4 (2023)] [thiele]
[https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/download/932/649] [Sami Ur Rahman = Associate Professor
of Law, The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan; Bukhari = Principal, Peace International School, Multan,
Pakistan; Zaman = Freelancer/Academic Writer, Law Graduate from Bahria University Islamabad]
The fact that the veto power has kept the Security Council from approving the use of force against a
permanent member is another argument in favor of the current arrangement. Since all of the
permanent members have access to WMDs and a battle between them may have disastrous effects, this
has helped to avert a war between them. (Nollkaemper, 2022).
Cotton-Barratt, researcher at Future of Humanity Institute, wrote in 17, Dr. Owen Research Associate at
the Future of Humanity Institute, 2/3/2017, “Existential Risk,” Global Priorities Project,
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Existential-Risks-2017-01-23.pdf
1.1.1 Nuclear war The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the unprecedented
destructive power of nuclear weapons. However, even in an all-out nuclear war between the United
States and Russia, despite horrific casualties, neither country’s population is likely to be completely
destroyed by the direct effects of the blast, fire, and radiation.8 The aftermath could be much worse:
the burning of flammable materials could send massive amounts of smoke into the atmosphere, which
would absorb sunlight and cause sustained global cooling, severe ozone loss, and agricultural disruption
– a nuclear winter. According to one model 9, an all-out exchange of 4,000 weapons 10 could lead to a
drop in global temperatures of around 8°C, making it impossible to grow food for 4 to 5 years. This could
leave some survivors in parts of Australia and New Zealand, but they would be in a very precarious
situation and the threat of extinction from other sources would be great. An exchange on this scale is
only possible between the US and Russia who have more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, with
stockpiles of around 4,500 warheads each, although many are not operationally deployed.11 Some
models suggest that even a small regional nuclear war involving 100 nuclear weapons would produce a
nuclear winter serious enough to put two billion people at risk of starvation,12 though this estimate
might be pessimistic.13 Wars on this scale are unlikely to lead to outright human extinction, but this
does suggest that conflicts which are around an order of magnitude larger may be likely to threaten
civilisation. It should be emphasised that there is very large uncertainty about the effects of a large
nuclear war on global climate. This remains an area where increased academic research work, including
more detailed climate modelling and a better understanding of how survivors might be able to cope and
adapt, would have high returns. It is very difficult to precisely estimate the probability of existential risk
from nuclear war over the next century, and existing attempts leave very large confidence intervals.
According to many experts, the most likely nuclear war at present is between India and Pakistan.14
However, given the relatively modest size of their arsenals, the risk of human extinction is plausibly
greater from a conflict between the United States and Russia. Tensions between these countries have
increased in recent years and it seems unreasonable to rule out the possibility of them rising further in
the future.
Subpoint B - Global Stability
Politically, the only way the veto gets abolished is if the UN gets abolished
Paige, law professor at Deakin University wrote in 23 [Tamsin Phillipa Paige "Stripping Russia’s veto
power on the Security Council is all but impossible. Perhaps we should expect less from the UN instead"
The Conversation. September 20, 2023][https://theconversation.com/stripping-russias-veto-power-on-
the-security-council-is-all-but-impossible-perhaps-we-should-expect-less-from-the-un-instead-213985]
[Paige = Senior Lecturer with Deakin Law School and periodically consults for the UN Office on Drugs and
Crime in relation to Maritime Crime, Graduate Certificate of Higher Ed. Learning & Teaching, Deakin
University, 2020 Doctor of Philosophy, University of Adelaide, 2018 Master of Philosophy, Australian
National University, 2014 Bachelor of Law(s), Univ. of Technology Sydney, 2012]
So, what about veto reform? If the existence of the veto prevents any Security Council action from being
taken against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine (or against any other P5 state when they engage in
similar conduct), why don’t we just reform it? Well, this can’t be done because the drafters of the UN
Charter made reform incredibly difficult. Namely, the P5 ensured they have a right to veto any proposed
reforms to the UN structure by requiring all charter amendments to be ratified by each of them, in
addition to getting a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In essence, this means reforming the
UN Charter is off the table because the P5 would be able to veto a reduction of their veto power. The
only avenue left for reform is to dissolve the UN Charter and reform the UN under a new treaty that
limits or abolishes the power of the veto. Given the state of global solidarity is very different today
compared to the end of WWII when the UN was established, I’m loathe to test this approach. A P5 that
is restrained by the Charter when it suits them is less dangerous than a P5 that opts out of international
law entirely, leaving them completely unrestrained in their aggression.
Bellamy, international security professor at Griffith, wrote in 14 [Sara Davies; Alex Bellamy "Don’t be too
quick to condemn the UN Security Council power of veto" The Conversation. August 11, 2014] [thiele]
[https://theconversation.com/dont-be-too-quick-to-condemn-the-un-security-council-power-of-veto-
29980] [Davis = ARC Future Fellow, Griffith University; Bellamy = Professor of International Security,
Griffith University]
Recent events in Gaza and Ukraine and the ongoing gridlock in Syria have dominated newspapers and
airwaves – and debate in the United Nations Security Council. Despite UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon voicing strong condemnation of alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza, the UN has been widely
criticised for its inability to ensure global co-operation to protect the world’s most vulnerable
populations. Given the high-profile vetoes of Russia and China on Syria and the repeated vetoes from
United States in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict, renewed debate over United Nations Security
Council reform and attempts to curtail the controversial power of veto has ensued. So, why do some
Security Council members have the veto power? And where would the Security Council be without it?
Establishing the veto The UN Charter, proclaimed at the UN’s establishment in San Francisco in 1945,
gives the Security Council primary responsibility for international peace and security. Today, the Security
Council comprises five Permanent Members, the “P5” – China, France, the UK, the US and Russia – and
ten non-permanent members elected for a two-year term. Australia is currently one of the non-
permanent members. Nine affirmative votes are required for a resolution to pass. However, if one of the
P5 casts a negative vote, a draft resolution will not be approved. The P5’s veto powers proved
controversial in San Francisco. An Australian-led revolt against the veto was rejected by the US.
Washington argued that a world organisation that hinged on ongoing participation of the great powers
must allow them to protect their “vital interests” or fall into irrelevance. This proved to the case for the
UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, which had no veto provisions in its Covenant. By the time it
was most needed, at the onset of the Second World War, none of the most significant world powers
(US, USSR, Germany, Japan) were members. Without the veto, the UN Security Council would surely
have suffered the same fate. It is difficult to imagine how the UN would have survived the Cold War
were it not for the veto. Facing an anti-Soviet majority in the years immediately after 1945, the USSR is
unlikely to have remained committed to a capitalist-dominated UN.
Politically, the only way the veto gets abolished is if the UN gets
abolished
Paige, law professor at Deakin University wrote in 23 [Tamsin Phillipa Paige "Stripping Russia’s veto power on the
Security Council is all but impossible. Perhaps we should expect less from the UN instead" The Conversation.
September 20, 2023] [thiele] [https://theconversation.com/stripping-russias-veto-power-on-the-security-council-
is-all-but-impossible-perhaps-we-should-expect-less-from-the-un-instead-213985] [Paige = Senior Lecturer with
Deakin Law School and periodically consults for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in relation to Maritime Crime,
Graduate Certificate of Higher Ed. Learning & Teaching, Deakin University, 2020 Doctor of Philosophy, University of
Adelaide, 2018 Master of Philosophy, Australian National University, 2014 Bachelor of Law(s), Univ. of Technology
Sydney, 2012]
So, what about veto reform? If the existence of the veto prevents any Security Council action from being
taken against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine (or against any other P5 state when they engage in
similar conduct), why don’t we just reform it? Well, this can’t be done because the drafters of the UN
Charter made reform incredibly difficult. Namely, the P5 ensured they have a right to veto any proposed
reforms to the UN structure by requiring all charter amendments to be ratified by each of them, in addition
to getting a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In essence, this means reforming the UN Charter
is off the table because the P5 would be able to veto a reduction of their veto power. The only avenue left
for reform is to dissolve the UN Charter and reform the UN under a new treaty that limits or abolishes the
power of the veto. Given the state of global solidarity is very different today compared to the end of WWII
when the UN was established, I’m loathe to test this approach. A P5 that is restrained by the Charter
when it suits them is less dangerous than a P5 that opts out of international law entirely, leaving them
completely unrestrained in their aggression.