Legislation is subject to approval by the Governor, whose veto can be overridden by two thirds of the Legislature.

The Hamas Veto

Our preference is to limit the use of veto and to promote a veto free culture.

Limiting the Security Council Veto

There should be no extension of the right of veto, and the use of the veto should be limited.

They should have a right of veto.

It was also suggested that if a veto is used, an explanation of the reasons for the veto should be given to the Assembly.

The question of the use of the veto

Instead, a veto free culture should be promoted.

(a) Restraint on the use of the veto

(f) The question of the use of the veto.

In our view, the veto can rarely be justified.

But our critics say that the AU is not really committed to the veto at all that it does not really want the veto, but something entirely different.

My third point relates to the use of the veto.

The third message is the claim to the veto power.

Let me briefly deal with the matter of the veto.

We have often reaffirmed that the veto should be eliminated.

We have also consistently advocated limiting the use of the veto.

Moreover, we must do away with the right of the veto.

Should the veto be extended to new permanent members or eliminated?

Until the final objective of the elimination of the veto is achieved, as a first step it is necessary to limit the veto to actions taken under Chapter VII of the Charter.

The proposed language concerning the veto power has already found broad acceptance.

The use of the veto power should be limited and eventually eliminated.

First, we have since 1945 opposed any extension of the veto right.

Our support is without prejudice to our historical position on the veto.

Some participants urged ending permanent membership and restricting or ending the veto.

The Governor has the power to veto a budget bill, following which the bill is returned to the Legislature, which can either override the Governor's veto by a special majority or reconsider the bill.

In line with the need for effective decision making, it is our preference to limit the use of the veto in general, and we certainly oppose extension of the veto to new permanent members.

In the US, members of Congress turned the coup into a platform for efforts to promote human rights. They condemned developments in Chile, held hearings about the importance of promoting human rights, and adopted legislation over President Gerald Ford s veto requiring that human rights standards guide US foreign policy.

A small minority cannot be allowed to veto the establishment of the Council.

I would like to return to our position with regard to the veto.

Collective action to prevent and respond to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must, therefore, not be made impossible by a veto or threat of veto by one of the permanent members of the Council.

First, Switzerland is opposed to granting the right of veto to new permanent members.

Chile supports the addition of new permanent members, but without the right of veto.

It establishes that the veto will not be exercised by the new permanent members.

Other delegations stated that the elimination of the veto was not a realistic proposition.

We therefore believe that the veto power should not be extended to new members.

We shall also have to look into the issue of the veto once again.

We must also do away with the right of veto, which often paralyses the Council.

Too often, permanent members have used the veto real or threatened to prevent effective action.

Those factors made the Organization less democratic and led to abuse of the veto privilege.

Legislation

Legislation

Legislation

The veto has never allowed the consensus or majority sovereign expression of the Security Council it has served only as a way in which to block the popular will so as to protect the interests of the Power exercising the veto.