Jordan- To face threats 

(MENAFN - Jordan Times) Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Costa Rica and Switzerland may be small in size, but they have big roles to play to save the day for the international community faced with the inaction of the UN Security Council in the face of threats to regional and international peace and security.

Known within the United Nations circles as the "Small Five" or the S-5, these brave nations are determined to extricate the international community from the repeated deadlocks at the UN Security Council when permanent members wield their veto power to block action, especially against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

HRH Prince Zeid Bin Raed, Jordan's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, delivered a speech before the UN Security Council in November, outlining the legal basis for this initiative that continues to draw praise and recognition as bringing, perhaps, salvation from repeated abuse of the veto power to the detriment of international order and rights of victims of atrocities and violence.

The message of the S-5 is simple and straightforward: Stop or at least observe a moratorium on the use or the threat to use the veto power at the Security Council so that states may not escape accountability and punishment for their crimes under the international humanitarian law for political gains or geopolitical considerations.

The idea is to curb the abuse of veto power on two principal grounds that the majority of nations would not disagree about.

First is the proposition that using the veto, by a permanent member of the Security Council, is not an absolute power devoid of constraints or caveats. It cannot be used, therefore, in an arbitrary manner to serve certain geopolitical goals not related to the ultimate "purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter".

In this vein, the S-5 submit, and rightly so, that the Security Council derives its rights and obligations from the UN Charter.

Article 24 of the Charter bestows on the council members, big or small, "primary responsibility" specifically for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The council's obligation is also conditioned to act in accordance with the "purposes and principles" of the UN Charter. In other words, the council members, permanent or not, must discharge their solemn duties, first to maintain international peace and security and second, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Any deviation from these solemn obligations is ultravires, and it can and should be struck down as repugnant to the UN Charter. This is clearly borne out by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Charter.

Second, while the council has the primary responsibility to carry out its legitimate functions, it does not have an exclusive power to do so.

The UN General Assembly resolution of 1950, titled "Uniting for Peace", makes this abundantly clear. What that resolution says is that when the UN Security Council is unable to act and carry out its duties due to the use of veto by a permanent member, the UN General Assembly can assume that function by making the necessary recommendations to UN member states for the purpose of maintaining peace and security.

The S-5 states say that the "purposes of the United Nations" are clearly spelled out in Article 1 of the Charter which reads, inter alia, as follows: "To maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... in conformity with the principles of justice and international law."

The five countries conclude that paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 24 of the Charter stipulate that in discharging its duties, the council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

It necessarily follows that in the event of the use or threat to use veto by a permanent member, the council is prevented from acting to deter, prevent or dismantle alleged violations of the sort which threaten international peace and security, and by so doing, ends up subverting the council's ability to fulfill its responsibility under Article 24 of the UN Charter.

That is in clear repudiation of the duty to uphold the principles of justice and international law, and this use or threat to use is illegitimate and ultravires.

On the strength of the aforesaid, the council members, especially the permanent ones, cannot and must not use or threaten to use the veto power to prevent action against the perpetration of the worst forms of cruelty and atrocity.

The S-5, therefore, are appealing for voluntary restraint or, better still, to observe a moratorium against the abuse of veto power in violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, pending the resolution of this issue by all the permanent members of the council.

One may add that seeking a legal opinion on it by the International Court of Justice or by an action by the UN General Assembly offers other avenues to reach an accord thereon.

These submissions are obviously worthy of reflection because at the rate the veto power is being used, whether on the Palestinian-Israeli or Syrian conflicts, or anywhere in the world for that matter, the purposes and principles of the UN Charter are being undermined.