Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (V)

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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misc

Should mention relationship to Korean war... AnonMoos 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resolution "377 A" (not "377")

(1) It is clear from the Annex of the resolution itself, that its correct name is "377 A", NOT "377": "Emergency special sessions pursuant to resolution 377 A (V)..."

Also see http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html --> "On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V)..."

(2) It is much better practice to use "377 A" in place of "377 A (V)" or "377 (V) A", etc., as already discussed below, as the latter leads to confusion and ambiguity. Even the resolution refers to itself in parts as "377 (V). Uniting for peace" and "A/RES/377(V) A".

This naming convention is no longer used however, as UNGA resolution numbers are now built explicitly using the Session Number (eg. A/RES/62/120), though they were not at the time of UfP. The fact that resolution "377 A" was adopted in Session 5, is entirely inconsequential, and plays no role in uniquely identifying the resolution. There is only one, and will always be only one "A/RES/377 A". Best if we stop sticking a random (V) here and there, sometimes, depending on the mood. --ElPax (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However your own link (1) to UN Documents List 377(V) It is only on wikipedia that "377 A" appears! All other sources including the UN lists it as 377(V)

So if we come to wikipedia and quote something like this, like I did earlier - we are giving incorrect information compared to the actual source and that makes wikipedia look foolish or make it look like someone cant read English correctly... If you are so determined to have an A then stick it with (V) - at least that is an attempt to mirror the UN data. 47.136.211.151 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Uniting for Peace

I strongly favour moving this article back to Uniting for Peace which is its actual title in the document and how it's always referred to. Resolution 377 is nothing more than an index code which means nothing to most people. The numbers act as a default when a good title has not been found, but they shouldn't be primary when there's a much better alternative.Goatchurch 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its true that the resolution is well known as Uniting for Peace, but if we use that as the article name, there will be no chance of future standardization for UN resolution article names. Current article naming inconsistencies can be easily seen on United Nations General Assembly resolution. Will put it to the UN WikiProject that there needs to be naming standards (I am assuming that there aren't already). A separate point is that the correct number of this resolution is in fact "377 A", not "377" (this is a confusion that appears at even highest levels of UN analysis, and so is best avoided). This fact can be confirmed by opening either of the existing links pointing to a scanned image of the resolution, and reading its own Annex, where its correct number is given several times. This is also quite important as 377 A itself has sections A, B, C, D and E within it, meaning Section A cannot be referred to correctly (e.g. 377 Sec. A, Sec. A) unless the resolution is correctly named "377 A". The (V) should be discarded, as this simply represents the UNGA regular session in which the resolution was adopted; a practice that has since been discontinued. Of course, resolution numbers are sequential across all sessions, so the (V) is in no way necessary to ensure uniqueness. Likewise, this leads to problems with placement - 377 (V) A / 377 A (V) - which are very common. --ElPax (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't buy this argument. Whenever a General Assembly resolution is passed it has an official title, which is the one people use when they are not talking to a filing system and want their audience to know what they're talking about. The Security Council tends to refer to its code numbers, but the General Assembly definitely do not. I don't think choosing a name on the basis that it's easier for a computer is a way to justify it. There are systems for declaring the numbers through an infobox that is picked up by DBpedia, or using a category reference like [[Category:Numbered General Assembly Resoultions|377]]. There are many ways to get computability without burdening the title of the article with something that's meaningless and not in common use.Goatchurch (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War and subsequent adoption of 377 A in November

Although this resolution was indeed "initiated by the United States in 1950 as a means of circumventing possible Soviet vetoes", it was actually of no (practical) importance during the Korean War; something that virtually every scholarly source is mistaken on (see the ICISS 'Responsibility to Protect' for example: R2P).

The first UNGA 'emergency special session' was called (upon the basis of 377 A) in 1956, as a result of the Suez Canal crisis (see ESSs). Likewise, "North Korean ground forces crossed the 38th Parallel into South Korea ... on 25 June 1950" (Korean War) - 4 months prior to the adoption of 377 A, on 3 November 1950. Although it is true that the Korean War was the catalyst for the adoption of 377 A, at the behest of the US, UK and France – at a time when they controlled the General Assembly – it was in fact Security Council resolutions 83 (27 June 1950) and 84 (7 July 1950) that established the UN mandate for a Korean force (several months before the adoption of 377 A by the Assembly). The USSR was boycotting the SC at the time (although not for long afterwards), and this was taken to mean that they had technically abstained on the voting on those resolutions, meaning no possible Soviet veto at that moment.

Is everybody happy for me to re-write history? --ElPax (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN Style Guide: resolution or Resolution? Capitalization generally? endash or emdash?

1) resolution or Resolution?

See link above first.

WikiStyle:

"There are differences between the major varieties of English in the use of capitals (uppercase letters). Where this is an issue, the rules of the cultural and linguistic context apply". It seems that the UN (/UNU?) style guide (see Main link) provides the appropriate "linguistic context" in articles on the UN; especially those that quote from verbatim records, which should obviously be copied as precisely as possible (this means UK/international English), meaning consistency dictates the use of the same style throughout the article, where possible.

2) Capitalization generally?

WikiStyle:

"The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case... the guidance in Article titles ... applies to section headings". This is why I used "First Emergency Special Session" as the subheading (there is little doubt that these 4 words form a proper noun, referring to a specific ESS on a specific, fixed topic), even though it appears as "first emergency special session" in the text, in order to maintain consistency with the UN "linguistic context".
"Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation". Was tempted not to capitalize ESS abbreviation, as the UN only uses 'tenth emergency special session', but this appears to conflict with WikiStyle.

3) endash or emdash?

WikiStyle:

"Em dashes are normally unspaced on Wikipedia"
"Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of em dashes in all of the ways discussed above... One style should be used consistently in an article.".

Note the UNU's guidance (see Main link) that "Both en dashes and em dashes should be presented in an unspaced (closed up) form", appears to be in general use at the UN. However, where this differs in any documents (mainly verbatim records) that are being directly quoted, I have retained the original use given that this could impact upon text searches. ElPax (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra documents and split the page

Meetings http://www.undemocracy.com/A-PV.299 http://www.undemocracy.com/A-PV.300 http://www.undemocracy.com/A-PV.301 and http://www.undemocracy.com/A-PV.302 (the one with the actual vote) are on-line.

Any thoughts about splitting off a separate article about the Emergency Special Sessions and keeping this one only about the Uniting for Peace resolution?Goatchurch (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goatchurch, I have just trimmed down the content of the eight ESS as far as I felt I could, in line with your comments. Although I certainly would not like to see the sections on the first ESS or eighth ESS expand any more than is absolutely necessary (indeed the tenth ESS already has its own article, and there is the List_of_emergency_special_sessions_of_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly which is probably adequate for additional, less than article-length content on any particular ESS), these two ESSs are explicitly included in the article on UfP owing to the fact that they both set precedents, and thereby make clear that the powers of the Assembly declared by UfP are not only of theoretical consequence. Indeed, it would be very difficult to argue, given that the complete spectrum of precedents were set by those two ESSs, that the Charter interpretations made by UfP are not now fully established principles of customary international law. --ElPax (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Uniting for Peace and the Security Council 'veto power'" is unclear

The Section "Uniting for Peace and the Security Council 'veto power'" is unclear what is opinion and what isn't, and so somebody should go through and make sure everything is clearly quoted or in neutral tone. --75.58.23.166 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to 'neutralize' the language, as suggested. --ElPax (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is still unclear. The GA has by any means not the power to overrule a SC veto. This is due to the fact, that it can not make a binding decision. The author should invest some time in research, like Michael Cowling´s essay on their relationship or un lecture by Tomuschat accessible online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.63.161 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am of course well aware of the idea that the UNGA "can not make a binding decision", but fortunately this suggestion is well addressed in one of the references provided in the Article: http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-veto-charade-by-cameron-hunt/ You also seem to be suggesting that as UNSC resolutions are "binding", they are always fully respected and never ignored? ElPax (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acheson Plan in Cyprus

I've seen in a video that after Makarios visited Athens and met with Y.Papandreu, where they decided to send 20,0000 Greek soldiers and guns etc to Cyprus to support Enosis, surround Turkish Cypriot districts, set checkpoints etc, limit their supplies of food and water etc (basically mobilise for the Akritas Plan etc), on 4th June 1964 the Turkish army began to prepare an operation, when president Johnson (of the US) called and invited the Turkish Prime Minister to Washington (so Turkey also stopped the operation), where he also invited the Greek Prime Minister, and he proposed as part of the Acheson Plan that the island be divided into two... which the Greeks rejected and after which the Greeks still mobilised on Cyprus etc in the aim of annexing the island etc...

Is this information worth including in this article?

There is also a large number of fairly reliable sources which also reference the Acheson Plan and attempts to find a solution to the inter-communal conflict in Cyprus, namely to stop Enosis etc which was at the heart of it, and to explore partition as a fair and viable solution. Some of these sources include:

The Peace Plans: 1964 - Acheson Plan - Cyprus Mail: https://cyprus-mail.com/2016/12/29/peace-plans-1964-acheson-plan/

ACHESON WARNS OF PERIL IN CYPRUS: https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/05/archives/acheson-warns-of-peril-in-cyprus-back-in-us-he-says-war-could-be.html

Revisiting the Acheson plan - Hürriyet Daily News: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/yusuf-kanli/revisiting-the-acheson-plan-98478

Hellenic Antidote: The Acheson plan for the partition of Cyprus: http://hellenicantidote.blogspot.com/2009/07/acheson-plan-for-partition-of-cyprus.html

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVI, Cyprus: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v16/d155

This is also mentioned in the Cyprus dispute Wikipedia page under the Peacemaking Efforts, 1964-74 section, in the following paragraph:

At the same time as it established a peacekeeping force, the Security Council also recommended that the Secretary-General, in consultation with the parties and the Guarantor Powers, designate a mediator to take charge of formal peacemaking efforts. U Thant, then the UN Secretary-General, appointed Sakari Tuomioja, a Finnish diplomat. While Tuomioja viewed the problem as essentially international in nature and saw enosis as the most logical course for a settlement, he rejected union on the grounds that it would be inappropriate for a UN official to propose a solution that would lead to the dissolution of a UN member state. The United States held a differing view. In early June, following another Turkish threat to intervene, Washington launched an independent initiative under Dean Acheson, a former Secretary of State. In July he presented a plan to unite Cyprus with Greece. In return for accepting this, Turkey would receive a sovereign military base on the island. The Turkish Cypriots would also be given minority rights, which would be overseen by a resident international commissioner. Makarios rejected the proposal, arguing that giving Turkey territory would be a limitation on enosis and would give Ankara too strong a say in the island's affairs. A second version of the plan was presented that offered Turkey a 50-year lease on a base. This offer was rejected by the Greek Cypriots and by Turkey. After several further attempts to reach an agreement, the United States was eventually forced to give up its effort.

Any thoughts ladies and gentlemen? Nargothronde (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Typo

Congo (1960) - USSR veto - 4th Emergency Special Session Needs to be fixed The second sentence in this section is a clear cut and paste of the previous section.

Qwartz2003 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]