N. members. For the approval of a judge candidate for the International Court of Justice or a Charter amendment, a 2/3 majority of U.N. members is required, not just those that are present and voting. Part 5- Consensus Decision-Making

When referring to the United Nations, consensus refers to a method of negotiation and a method of decision making. Under the rubric of U.N. voting, consensus means that the voting body will have reached at least an agreement with all members that the issue will move forward or die -- that a reasonable level of agreement is in place, even if all members are not 100% for or 100% against. Unanimity and majority rule are different than consensus in that unanimity indicates that all members actively support the measure and a majority that 51.1% indicates pro-or con. Consensus simply means that there is no clear majority, nor is there 100% agreement to fully support the measure, but there is a compromise position allowing the issue to be decided because all voting members agree "enough" on the issue. Any objections on the voting member disallows consensus. Particularly since the 1960s, consensus decision making has taken on a greater role because of the "disconnect between voting power… and the realities of material power."

Consensus decision making addresses this problem because it necessitates cooperation between developing nations that may vote and the developed nations that have more material power. Without the support of the developing nations, there is little hope of passing or enforcing controversial resolutions. Three criticisms of this methodology include: 1) subjective nature of consensus terminology; 2) ambivalence and less inclusion of some states in the process; and, 3) whether consensus refutes voting since it can sometimes be used to adopt resolutions. Still, consensus allows for protracted negotiations, the public appearance of a body working through its differences for the...

remains somewhat controversial. One prime issue concerns the meaning of concurring votes. Does this mean that the permanent five in the Security Council for the same? Does it mean only affirmative votes, what happens with abstentions? Another surrounds the issue between procedural and substantive issues. Without a strict definition, a "double veto power" is a possibility for permanent SC members. A third debate surrounds the extent in which veto power harms the Council over time. Some see veto power as a stop-gap, others a way to kill legislation through coercion and power plays. This may occur in the "reverse veto" situation, in which states have the ability to not only veto the initiative, but veto its alteration or termination as well. This makes the initial decision to act even more important because it increases the power of the permanent Council members.
Conclusions-

The issues surrounding voting at the United Nations are complex and problematical. They deal with not only procedural issues, but the very essence of the U.N.'s span of control. For instance, through most of the 20th century, the bulk of the UN's budget was paid by just 20 nations, yet voting reform was being aggressively pushed from a number of smaller nations. The ideas of veto power, influence and consensus building continue to plague debate within the U.N. As well as the public's view of the institution's effectiveness.

END NOTES

Courtney B. Smith, Politics and Process at the United Nations: The Global Dance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006), 189.

Ibid, pp. 188-9.

Ibid., 208-9.

Ibid., 209-10.

Ibid, 210.

Ibid., 212-13.

Ibid., 212.

Ibid., 219.

Ibid., 220-1.

Ibid., 217.