334 Journal of the Spanisch Institute for Strategic Studies N. 3 / 2014 The French proposal comes in a context in which the status of the RtoP is underpinned, given that is it aligned in a clear and direct way with the internal armed conflict that has been being played out in Syria since the first quarter of 2011, and with the very serious humanitarian crisis that the country has experienced since then. This was made clear in the speech given by the President of France to the UN General Assembly: “The UN has a responsibility to take action. And whenever our organization proves to be powerless, it’s peace that pays the price. That’s why I am proposing that a code of good conduct be defined by the permanent members of the Security Council, and that in the event of a mass crime they can decide to collectively renounce their veto powers”; “And in Syria, the situation is urgent. Urgent because 120,000 people have died in the past two and a half years, 90,000 in the last year alone. A quarter of the population has been displaced. Millions of Syrians have become refugees. And the country has been destroyed”31. France’s proposal suggested self-limitation regarding the use of the right of veto from the side of the permanent members of the Security Council, particularly in exceptional situations (which would be defined through a determined procedure). A safeguard clause would, however, exist. There are three elements to the proposal: A) The permanent members of the Security Council, proposes France, will renounce their right of veto, as conferred upon them by the Charter, in cases of particular gravity. This would involve the agreement of the five states (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and the People’s Republic of China) on a code of conduct. It should be noted that the agreement that would be reached starting from the Gallic proposal would have a political content that would generate moral – and political – obligations; it would not be an enforceable agreement in legal terms32. Equally, it would appear that there may be an agreement of this kind by the permanent members of the Security Council, prior to the drafting of a case. If the proposed adjoiont de la France auprès des Nations Unies. New York 07/11/2013”, in WECKEL, PH.: “Conseil de Sécurité, le nécessaire débat sur la limitation du droit de véto des membres permanents”, Sentinelle, bulletin n°. 365, 10 November 2013, pp. 1-3 (pp. 1-2), www.sentinelle-droit-international.fr (Consulted: 12 November 2013). 31 “UNGA: Speech by President François Hollande…” cit., pp. 3 and 1 respectively. 32 In the words of Tunisian Habib SLIM, is it a “gentlemen’s agreement” that adopts a “kind of moral code that completes the Charter”: “A propos de la récente proposition française de réforme du droit de véto au Conseil de Sécurité”, Sentinelle, bulletin n°. 362, 20 October 2013, pp. 1-6, p. 2, www. sentinelle-droit-international.fr (Consulted: 11 November 2013).
REVISTA IEEE 3
To see the actual publication please follow the link above