Okay, foreign affairs fans, herewith a brief primer on an infrequently discussed feature of diplomacy that is both blessing and curse. That feature is the "rule of unanimity" that prevails in many, dare I say most, international gatherings.
Organizations like ASEAN, NATO, the EU, and others, operate on the basis that the organization will only take a stand on things all members can agree upon. This means a single holdout nation can neuter the organization.
We have an example before us. Reuters reports via Yahoo News that, at an ongoing ASEAN meeting in Laos, Cambodia has refused to agree to a communique concerning the South China Sea.
The other member states wish included a reference to a recent UNCLOS court finding in The Hague. The court ruled China has no special dominion over the reefs and rocks scattered across the SCS. By holding out, Cambodia has prevented ASEAN from taking a stand the other members favor.
It is likely China offered Cambodia serious inducements in trade or infrastructure investments in return for an agreement to veto inclusion of the court's ruling. Obviously no quid pro quo will be admitted.
This is a very current example of the downside to unanimity. The upside is that, when all members do agree, their very unanimity makes arguing with whatever position is taken quite difficult. So for all its faults, diplomats hang onto the unanimity principle.
Sometimes, as in the case of NATO, the member nations in time of peace agreed to a charter which binds each to act in times of crisis. Now, if a member decides a change in that charter is needed, one nation could block the proposed change.
