2026-03-02 21:43 UTC
@benroyce practise shows us there is no difference, good example is eg Russia, we have resolution about Ukraine, Russia VETO, conflict remains, resolution (not paper, but conflict resolution) is not happening. How much I try, I can’t see any scenario where veto is resolving any conflict, it is just freezing, technically it is statement, thats one party does not agree, and status quo stays. If you will have it the way how parliamentary democracies have, thats president can veto law, but then second voting of parliament/senate happens and can/will over-vote presidential veto, that might be starting point for discussion, but realistically it means there is no veto. And thats the point.
Replies (1)
-
@benroyce@mastodon.social 2026-03-02 21:48
@janantos i totally understand that and the UN is neutered now but in the scenario you describe it is also neutered. because there is no capacity or will to enforce the resolution. and the recalcitrant country, that would have vetoed but is now overruled, will just ignore the resolution so the scenario you describe is a UN that writes angry letters and the malicious of the world just laugh