The United Nations General Assembly reconvened on Tuesday, December 12, for Emergency Session No. 10 to discuss and adopt its second resolution on the armed conflict in Gaza. The new resolution A/ES-10/L.27 follows the new US veto to stop the Security Council action.
If the Security Council is deadlocked and cannot fulfill its “primary responsibilities,” it is possible that the General Assembly will meet and decide on measures that are urgent and necessary to maintain the peace.
The peace union clause contained in Resolution 377A(V) of 1950 has been invoked on several occasions in the past, including through the use of collective action, as in the Korean War, which enabled the use of international troops in that and other conflicts later.
Unnecessarily, the resolution of a few days ago does not explicitly refer to the “Union for Peace” clause, but rather to serious concerns about the “catastrophic humanitarian situation” and does not go so far as to recommend collective action.
The importance of this solution must then be measured by the pressure it creates to end the conflict, especially given the massive support for it. It received 153 votes in favour, 10 against and 23 abstentions, in contrast to the 121 votes in favour, 14 against and 44 abstentions in the previous resolution of October 27, A/RES/ES-10/2 1, stands.
What is striking is that this time there were 32 more yes votes and 25 fewer no votes or abstentions. The number of absentees and ineligible to vote was also reduced by half, from 14 in October to 7 in December.
Countries that changed their vote
What stands out for its importance is the vote by Japan, the third-largest contributor to the United Nations, which went from abstaining to voting in favor. And that of India, the most populous country, which has changed it in the same spirit.
It is noteworthy that although there is still an opposing minority in European countries, fewer people have now voted against or abstained from voting. Croatia went from a no vote to a yes vote, while Hungary changed the no vote to an abstention. However, a third of EU countries still say they do not share the majority opinion of international society. Specifically, there were 2 votes against (Austria and the Czech Republic) and 8 abstentions from a total of 27 countries (Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Romania).
On the other hand, these are the countries that opposed it: the United States, Israel, Austria, the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Liberia, Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Paraguay.
The main reason for this shift towards the greatest possible international consensus – let us remember that the decisions of the General Assembly are adopted with a majority of 2/3 of the voters (Article 18.2, Charter of the United Nations) and therefore 153 votes represent one very strong majority – is due to the changing public opinion in many societies, which believe that all tolerable limits have been exceeded in this conflict.
Even in countries like the United States that have not yet changed their position, American and global public opinion is shifting toward a permanent ceasefire and a negotiated solution to the crisis that takes into account the context in which it arises. US President Joe Biden made this clear in critical statements to the Israeli government on the day the resolution was passed.
A more synthetic resolution
There are also other reasons that have to do with the fact that this resolution is much more synthetic and therefore produces greater unity. In fact, it is a resolution of four points, compared to 14 in the previous one. The key differences are that it calls for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” but does not require it to be “sustainable and conducive to the cessation of hostilities.” There are urgent calls for the release of the hostages and access to humanitarian aid.
The calls for containment to prevent escalation and to achieve a just and lasting peace through peaceful means disappear from the text. In general terms, the specific points on humanitarian access, non-forcible displacement and population, provision of food, medicine and fuel, prohibition of attacks on civilian facilities and humanitarian workers (UNRWA, Red Cross, health workers…) are summarized in a single paragraph on compliance by all parties with the requirements of international humanitarian law, in particular with regard to the protection of civilians.
In summary, the General Assembly has not yet taken the step of recommending collective action, but has shown that it is urgently fulfilling its responsibilities due to the paralysis of the Security Council (Union for Peace).
With the latest resolution, you overwhelmingly expressed an urgent need: a ceasefire against the violence in Gaza. And in doing so, it placed the onus on the Security Council to support the Assembly's resolution, under threat of being viewed as a body hijacked by the will of one of its permanent members.