UN Resolution 377, AKA the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, resolves:
that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request therefor. Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations . . .
Resolution 377 was adopted in November 1950 with U.S. sponsorship and near-unanimous support. It was first invoked in 1956, by the United States, in response to the British and French invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis; and again, later that year, when the Soviet Union intervened in Hungary. An article written about three weeks ago by Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) and Jules Lobel (University of Pittsburgh School of Law) is beginning to spread about the Web. (See also material at the Center for Constitutional Rights.) I suspect there will be more discussion of Resolution 377 now that the United States and Britain are calling for Iraq to complete disarmament (by what measure?) before a March 17 deadline -- a deadline that would surely be vetoed by France, Russia, and China in the Security Council.