Indeed, the British government stated that, first, the Quadrennial Alliance did not provide a guarantee of mutual assistance and did not require its members to help their partners, to prevent them from attacking their governments, or to protect the territories. 77 d. to 37. Second, Britain argued that in the event of a violation of international law, each member of the major powers has discretion to determine whether the situation required a collective response. 78 d. to 42. That is why, according to Britain, “all conceptions of the general and unlimited guarantee must be abandoned” and each state must be left to its own devices. 79 d. The result of this institutional project and the privileges granted to permanent members has been “selective security” for more than seven decades. 140Adam Roberts – Dominik Zaum, Selective Security: War and the United Nations Security Council Since 1945 74-77 (Adelphi Paper 2008). Rarely, as in response to Kuwait`s invasion of Iraq, has the Security Council acted quickly, aggressively and effectively. 141 Mary Ellen O`Connell, Forforcing the Prohibition on the Use of Force: The U.N.
`s Response to Iraq`s Invasion of Kuwait, 15 pp. III. U.L. J. 453, 453 (1991). However, the Commission has often decided not to do so. The reasons for inaction vary depending on the circumstances. The most obvious reason for inaction is the 202 vetoes of permanent members as of March 1, 2018. 142 A list of all veto-pleased Draft Security Council resolutions is available here: Meeting Records, U.N.
Sec. Council, www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/records/2017.shtml (the last visit was on April 13, 2018). The veto or veto threat meant that the Security Council was powerless when a permanent member committed an act of aggression or intervened in a foreign state, such as the Franco-Anglo-Israeli aggression against Egypt, also known as the DieSuez Crisis (1956); Soviet interventions in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979); or U.S. interventions against Cuba (1961), Granada (1983), Panama (1989) and Iraq (2013). Even where a permanent member has not directly committed an act of aggression, the Security Council has been prevented from addressing crises or conflicts that have harmed the interests of those states or have taken place within the spheres of influence of those states. The Security Council was also often prevented from intervening when a permanent member was protecting an ally or client state. In addition to the paralysis of the Security Council due to disagreements among its permanent members, there were moments of non-interference because the permanent members had an interest in the continuation of armed conflict.