SEOUL -- As the U.N. Security Council debate on Iraq moves forward, precedent is pertinent. For Korea a half-century ago, it took three Security Council resolutions to authorize and organize an armed U.N. response; for Kuwait in 1990, more than a "baker's dozen."
How has the Security Council reached consensus in the past and what might occur in its absence?
Whereas, the first two enforcement actions involved territorial aggression against sovereign states -- a fundamental violation of the U.N. Charter and international law -- this time, we are dealing with a more abstract but potentially more lethal threat stemming from alleged weapons of mass destruction but without the smoking gun needed to secure Security Council consensus. Thus, in the current crisis, the members of the Security Council have been divided over whether one or two resolutions are necessary or, indeed, any at all.