This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations: United Nations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

An article that you have been involved in editing—the merger discussion—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 187.104.24.185 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any reason not to merge. The US specific article seems to be the only one focusing on a single country (possible WP:POVFORM) and it is just a list that is completely handled by this article. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the other article should be merged into this one? I am concerned that the other article does not add any new information. Also the fact that no other country specific articles exist is not a good argument, as those could always be created in the future if it is deemed useful. Auguel (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least one good reason, that List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council contains information about majorities (which happens to be what I was looking for today after [1]). I agree those could be merged in the main table here, but until that's done there is no reason to merge. Nemo 07:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected the criteria for inclusion on this list to be...

• draft resolutions where
  • more of the Security Council members voted in favour than against,
  • but the resolution fell because one (or more) of the five permanent members voted against.

But either some such cases have been omitted in error, or some more restrictive criteria are being used; in the latter case, what is it?

The wiki table has source Dag Hammarskjöld Library which in turn has source document A/58/47, Annex III Part I "Part 1 Draft resources [sic] not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member". However:

• Dag Hammarskjöld excludes document A/58/47, Annex III Part II Part II "Paragraphs of draft resolutions or amendments thereto not adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member"
• document A/58/47, Annex III Part I appears to be incomplete.
  • Part I excludes some votes on S/133, nine applications for membership considered in Aug 1946 at meetings 54 (28 Aug am) 55 (28 Aug pm) 56 (29 Aug am) and 57 (29 Aug pm). Siam paused its application (PV.54 p41). The initial resolution to accept the remaining eight en bloc (PV.54 pp42–3 and PV.57 pp114–6) was replaced with separate votes on each (PV.57 p124). First was raised a motion (PV.57 p116) on whether to postpone the vote on Albania and Mongolia; followed by a vote on whether that motion was "procedure" as opposed to "substance", which lost on the Soviet veto (PV.57 p132). Then the vote on the postpone motion was also lost on the Soviet veto (PV.57 pp135–6). Then the individual motions on the eight remaining candidates (PV.57 pp138–140):
    • Afghanistan, Iceland, and Sweden were accepted
    • Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal are listed as Soviet vetos
    • Two lost on a UK+US veto are not listed (in document A/58/47, Annex III Part I or Dag Hammarskjöld or Wikipedia):
      • Albania
        • In favour: Brazil, France, Mexico, Poland, Soviet Union
        • Against: Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America
        • Abstentions: Australia, China, Egypt
      • Mongolia
        • In favour: Brazil, China, France, Mexico, Poland, Soviet Union
        • Against: Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America
        • Abstentions: Egypt, Australia
  • In the above I have bolded three instances where the veto was used.
    • I suppose the first two are not listed in our table because the vetoed motions were not "resolutions", though I'm not sure what the difference is between a "resolution" and a "motion of substance" (which the postpone motion was, according to the other motion).
    • Much more serious is the final case: there seems no good reason why the UK+US veto of Albania and Mongolia is left out whereas those of Transjordan, Ireland, and Portugal are included. Possible differences:
      • For some purposes a minimum of seven members voting in favour was required; did that apply in these cases? Contra which, the chairman said "The motion is not carried since there are two permanent members among those who have voted against."
      • Or maybe the fact that the Netherlands was also voting against? Which ought not to matter, since the total yes exceeded the toal no
      • Or maybe whoever compiled document A/58/47, Annex III just made a boo-boo

jnestorius^(talk) 13:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnestorius: I think the issue stems from one of your initial criteria being wrong. I didn't realise this myself, but the UNSC resolutions are not adopted by a simple majority but rather need 9 out of 15 affirmative votes (7 out of 11 before the expansion) (note this means abstention by a regular member is essentially the same as a negative vote). This means the resolutions to admit Albania and Mongolia failed without the need of the veto, and so are not included. I think this also applies to the two other issues you pointed out. Auguel (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "Application for Membership" resolutions held on the same day and had the same meeting record were separated into different entries on the list. Clutter should be reduced on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. If one wants to see a complete list of all the vetoed resolutions, they could just visit the UN page at https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick (which much of this page seems to be copied from). Xenoriole (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for 22 March 2024 S/2024/239 is broken. 72.50.214.194 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]