The U.S. veto Friday of a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza sparked discussions and a call for action to use a rare U.N. resolution in efforts aimed at ending Israel’s brutal war on Gaza.
Egypt and Mauritania on Monday invoked Resolution 377A (V) to call for an emergency meeting of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Tuesday. The resolution states that if the United Nations Security Council is unable to fulfill its primary responsibility of maintaining world peace due to lack of unanimity, the UNGA can intervene.
But it comes with clauses and the UNGA’s recommendations are legally non-binding, meaning its proposals can be ignored without any consequences. Israel has ignored several binding UN resolutions in the past, mainly thanks to diplomatic support from Washington.
So what is the resolution, what is its history, and can it be used to override the US veto and end the devastating war that has killed more than 18,000 Palestinians since October 7?
What is the resolution?
Section A of Resolution 377A (V), also known as “United for Peace”, aims to resolve a situation in which the UN “fails to exercise its primary responsibility in maintaining peace and of international security” because the members of the Security Council cannot “I do not agree.
It empowers the General Assembly, in the first place, to convene a meeting through the Secretary General. The assembly is supposed to make recommendations to members for collective measures, including “the use of armed force when necessary.”
At least one member of the UN Security Council or a group of members of the General Assembly must be in favor of convening the resolution for it to come into force.
What sparked this idea?
The idea of considering additional powers for the secretary-general to potentially break a stalemate was adopted following the Korean War in 1950, which saw North Korea invade its southern neighbor after years hostilities between the two countries.
At the time, the former Soviet Union blocked any determination by the Security Council to stop the war, leading to the adoption of Resolution 377 (V) on November 3, 1950.
This came after the United States successfully gained support for the idea that the General Assembly should be empowered to strengthen its capabilities to protect global security.
Where has it been used before?
The resolution is not widely used, but it is known to have been used several times over the decades to help resolve various conflicts, including the Congo Crisis in 1960, the India-Pakistan conflict in 1971 and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1980.
A crucial element of the resolution is that it affirms that the General Assembly may, if it deems it appropriate, recommend the use of force.
In this sense, the resolution was implemented only once – during the Korean crisis.
Resolution 377A was used to convene an emergency session of the General Assembly in 1951 due to lack of consensus among UNSC members. This led to the adoption of UN Resolution 498 (V), which declared that China had become militarily engaged in the Korean War.
It was the first time the UN treated a nation as an aggressor in the middle of a war. The resolution did not explicitly refer to the United for Peace resolution, but it copied its text exactly by asserting that the UN Security Council had failed to effectively discharge its global responsibility due to discord between its members.
It “called upon all States and authorities to continue to provide all assistance to the United Nations action in Korea,” which implied military assistance. However, this did not lead to the deployment of force by the UN, which had called for a cessation of hostilities.
This function of Uniting for Peace is different from the peacekeeping function of the organization, or the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the first of which was created in 1956 to monitor the front line between Israel and Egypt. The UNEF had no combat function and was supposed to neutralize conflicts solely through the presence of its forces.
UN peacekeeping forces are now active in a dozen countries, including Lebanon, where they monitor the cessation of hostilities with Israel and provide humanitarian assistance to civilians after several conflicts.
Can it be used to stop the war in Gaza?
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could potentially be empowered to convene an emergency session of the General Assembly within 24 hours if at least one member of the Security Council or a group of members of the General Assembly the request.
Member states could then make recommendations for collective action, which could involve resorting to more extreme options if agreed, including military action.
But all resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly are only recommendations. This means that, unlike some Security Council decisions, these resolutions are not legally binding.
Regardless, there have been increasing discussions and calls online for the UN to use this power.
They only accelerated when Guterres decided on Wednesday to invoke Article 99 of the United Nations Charter to formally warn the Security Council that Israel’s war against Gaza now constitutes a global threat.
Speaking at the Doha Forum on Sunday, the UN chief said he would not give up on calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza despite Friday’s veto.
“I urged the Security Council to press to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe and reiterated my call for a humanitarian ceasefire to be declared. Unfortunately, the Security Council has failed to do so, but that does not make it any less necessary,” he said.
Why does the United States continue to veto ceasefires?
Washington has consistently vetoed all Security Council resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire and more humanitarian aid to the besieged Palestinians.
The latest came on Friday when the remaining 13 members of the current 15-member UN Security Council voted in favor of a resolution co-sponsored by 100 other countries. The United Kingdom abstained.
That led to a new impasse in efforts to stop Israel’s ground and air attacks that have killed nearly 18,000 Palestinians since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that killed more than 1,100 people in Israel. Hamas also took more than 200 prisoners, dozens of whom were released as part of the truce agreement that also saw the release of hundreds of Palestinians from Israeli prisons.
Facing growing criticism and continuing protests around the world, Washington has maintained that it is opposed to an immediate ceasefire because it would allow Hamas to reestablish itself and continue to pose a threat to Israel’s security.
Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups have led an armed rebellion against decades of Israeli occupation and blockade. Israel has also been accused of implementing measures such as building settlements on Palestinian land that hinder the realization of a future Palestinian state.
The United States believes that its own policy interventions would be more effective in ensuring that Israel avoids civilian deaths while doing its best to secure the release of captives held in Gaza and moving toward a Western-backed goal of to “destroy” Hamas.
But Israel does not appear to have heeded American advice on protecting Palestinian civilians, since more than 80% of the victims are civilians.