LEGISLATION SUPPORT THE SUSPENSION OF VETO RIGHT IN CASES OF MASSES ATROCITIES

The failure of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes – genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity – has severely impaired its credibility in the eyes of the wider UN membership and the public.

Since October 2011 the veto has been exercised twelve times by two of the UNSC's permanent members – Russia (twelve) and China – (six, plus one abstention) on resolutions meant to address crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against the Syrian people. The Syrian conflict is now in its eighth year and has consumed thousands of lives.

Those vetoes undermined the legitimacy of the UNSC, shielded perpetrators from accountability and cost lives.

Over the past few years there has been growing momentum around petitions for the UNSC to voluntarily refrain from using veto in atrocity situations. Over 120 governments - in addition to two UN observer missions - have supported it for veto restraint or a code of conduct. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect has been working closely with civil society organizations and member states in issuing joint efforts and applying for restraint.

Since 2005 the UN Secretary-General, Deputy-Secretary-General, High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Advisers for Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect have all persist on voluntary restraint of the veto in mass atrocity situations

France/Mexico Initiative

Veto restraint in atrocity situations was first suggested by French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine in 2001 and later announced again by President François Hollande in his address to the UN General Assembly in 2013, and further articulated in more detail by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in an op-ed in the New York Times on 4 October 2013.

During 2015 France launched a "Political Declaration on suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity," open to all member states to support. The Political Declaration is focused only on the five permanent members of the UNSC and apply for voluntary restraint of the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities.

As of 27 June 2017, the Political Declaration is supported by 96 member states.

The United Nations' Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has been established in the wake of the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993. It spearheads the United Nations' human rights efforts and aims at making the promise of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights a reality.

The High Commissioner is being persuaded that the head of the Syrian regime, Bashar Assad, deserves to face justice before the International Criminal Court. He is perfectly aware, though, that permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have the power block this; so he is asking for the veto powers to be suspended temporarily. He, of course, refers particularly to Russia's veto powers, as we all know that Moscow didn't miss an opportunity in the past to protect the Assad regime at the Security Council, *in order to preserve his profitable bussiness of war weaponry and war heavy machinery trade, with connects him directly with the dangerously multimillonaire Russian mafia*

This is perhaps the High Commissioner's way of saying that "the world is bigger than five." He also has a very convincing humanitarian argument to justify this stance.

Unfortunately, among the five major powers holding the veto right, only France has announced it may accept a temporary suspension.* The remaining four have preferred to remain silent; perhaps because they suspect their own war crimes may come under scrutiny. They want to hide their past by protecting Assad, as they are all involved one way or another in similar crimes, they don't seem to worry about each other's vetoes, as happens in the EEUU case by protecting the Palestinian genocide for the naive illusion of that , by protecting the Jews the will protect the ancestral procedence of their Companies money and not only: the American intervention of former American Governments and directly responsibility on war crimes commimments, make feel afraid even the most pretended and sincere right defender, as Donald Trump, for example, has intended to be.

Nepotism, Mr Trump is illegal, mostly in Politics*

So, please, in order to preserve the integrity of the defendless and according to international law, countries, members of the Security UN council, please remain the "5 Team" their moral duties while voting and restrain themselves to vote against their own economical interest.

Even more, it means that: the accomplices of a genocide, as the case of voting against a punishment against a war criminal country, will be automatically considered as a war criminal itself, and potentially judged as one, by...

The International Criminal Court (ICC)

has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It will also have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when agreement is reached on the definition of such a crime. The ICC is legally and functionally independent from the United Nations, and is not a part of the UN system.

The cooperation between the UN and the ICC is governed by a Negotiated Relationship Agreement. The Security Council can initiate proceedings before the ICC, and can refer to the ICC situations that would not otherwise fall under the Court’s jurisdiction.

"Convention against Genocide'

This convention bans acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It declares genocide a crime under international law whether committed during war or peacetime, and binds all signators of the convention to to take measures to prevent and punish any acts of genocide committed within their jurisdiction. The act bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and taking group members' children away from them and giving them to members of another group.

It declares genocide itself: "conspiracy or incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit or complicity in the commission of genocide all to be illegal. Individuals are to be held responsible for these acts whether they were acting in their official capacities or as private individuals. Signators to the convention are bound to enact appropriate legislation to make the acts named in Article 3 illegal under their national law and provide appropriate penalties for violators.

People suspected of acts of genocide may be tried by a national tribunal in the territory where the acts were committed or by a properly constituted international tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the state or states involved. For purposes of extradition, an allegation of genocide is not to be considered a political crime, and states are bound to extradite suspects in accordance with national laws and treaties. Any state party to the Convention may also apply to the United Nations to act to prevent or punish acts of genocide."

The remainder of the Convention specifies procedures for resolving disputes between nations about whether a specific act or acts constitute(s) genocide, and gives procedures for ratification of the conve

ncion.

So, please, "5 Team" remember that:

if you block a UN sanction and violate the international law concerning Human Rights Protection, you can be legally considered a war criminal yourself ( as a representative or even individually) and face and ICC tribunal concerning those crimes you have been " double- tapping" and protecting.

Remember also, that you are a minority, which means that, in case of been considered your self a war criminal, you can fall down directly in hands and depending on the vote of one of your wildest foes in the next round of votation.

You can start making your calculations to understand..., so please remember your moral obligations and best interest while exerting your vetoed right next time...

Concretedly:

Siria- Russia

Siria- China

Israel- EEUU

Be so cautious from now on...Most probably you can be prosecuted yourself facing the ICC and none of your allies, but the opposite, would be there to block any sanction...or comdenation.

Just remember it.UN