The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has veto power on all substantive matters taken up by the Council.
Doesn't that mean that they can pretty much ignore anything the General Assembly or most other international bodies tell them to do, just like the United States, Russia, and China do
No, the fact that they are world power backed up by the US and a number of other major powers in most things usually means that, though.
because actually enforcing anything usually involves something that ends up requiring some kind of action that will require Security Council approval?
Facing the potential of Soviet veto producing a Security Council deadlock in the Korean War era, the US came up with a solution to that which was adopted in A/RES/377A (3 Nov 1950), the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, under which the General Assembly makes recommendations for coordinated action in the event of a Security Council deadlock. This has been invoked roughly a dozen times since, and effectively provides a General Assembly route around Security Council vetoes.
The first use outside the context of Korea (in the 1956 Suez crisis) was against a UK/France joint veto in the Security Council.
Not saying you are incorrect, but I got the impression from your comment that 377A had something to do with the initial UN action in the Korean War, so context for anyone else that got that impression:
The UN involvement in the Korean War was authorized by Resolution 83[1] and Resolution 84[2] and the votes were held while the Soviet Union vetoed the security council because China's seat was held by the ROC, not PRC. 377A was a way to prevent vetoes from blocking future action in that and coming conflicts.
Comments
No, the fact that they are world power backed up by the US and a number of other major powers in most things usually means that, though.
Facing the potential of Soviet veto producing a Security Council deadlock in the Korean War era, the US came up with a solution to that which was adopted in A/RES/377A (3 Nov 1950), the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, under which the General Assembly makes recommendations for coordinated action in the event of a Security Council deadlock. This has been invoked roughly a dozen times since, and effectively provides a General Assembly route around Security Council vetoes.
The first use outside the context of Korea (in the 1956 Suez crisis) was against a UK/France joint veto in the Security Council.
Not saying you are incorrect, but I got the impression from your comment that 377A had something to do with the initial UN action in the Korean War, so context for anyone else that got that impression:
The UN involvement in the Korean War was authorized by Resolution 83[1] and Resolution 84[2] and the votes were held while the Soviet Union vetoed the security council because China's seat was held by the ROC, not PRC. 377A was a way to prevent vetoes from blocking future action in that and coming conflicts.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...