From Latin unanimous, unanimous is an adjective that refers to set of opinions or comments that coincide in the opinion or in the opinion. Something unanimous does not show differences or contradictions between their elements.
For instance: “The jury ruled unanimously in favor of the businessman”, “I have consulted the rest of the team and they are unanimous: we are not going to appear in the next tournament if we do not pay what corresponds to”, “In a unanimous decision, the Argentine boxer won the world title by beating his rival on points”.
The concept usually appears in the cases in which there are votes to settle an issue. Said votes must have a limited number of votes since, in case of being massive (like a suffrage electoral), unanimity is impossible. On the other hand, if a few people vote, it is quite likely that a unanimous decision can be registered.
At boxing, there is talk of unanimous ruling when all the members of the jury agree when naming the winner of a combat. This means that the different judges give a higher score to the same boxer, without any of them having had another appreciation of the actions.
Sometimes the notion of unanimous is used in a sense general to mention the consensus. With expressions like “Society, unanimously, has rejected the government’s measures”An attempt is made to convey the scant support received for a position, although this does not mean that no one among thousands or millions has expressed otherwise.
The date September 28, 2013 represents a milestone in the recent history of Syria: the UN resolved unanimously the destruction of their chemical arsenal. After a civil war that had devastated their lands for two long years, the use of chemical weapons was finally condemned, in addition to requesting their elimination. It is worth mentioning that it was not an imposition, but a peaceful appeal: the Syrian government was not threatened with retaliation if it did not comply with its part of the agreement.
This historic unanimity on the part of the United Nations was a respite for a country that he hadn’t heard hopeful news in a long time. His use of chemical weapons was known and it was only a matter of time before the international community did something about it.
The resolution was based on a agreement between Russia and North America at the beginning of September 2013, after an investigation was carried out by the United Nations to verify the use of sarin gas (an odorless and colorless liquid, used in chemical attacks and declared by the Un like weapon of mass destruction) in a confrontation that took place on the outskirts of the Syrian capital, which claimed the lives of hundreds of innocents.
The Charter drawn up by the United Nations specified that the Security Council would have total Liberty to decide the appropriate procedure, without the use of armed force, if the expected response from Syria was not obtained.
It was an unprecedented resolution that sought end violence in a peaceful way, unlike so many contradictory actions that took place in the history of mankind. Russian and American authorities stressed the importance of having achieved deterrence and reduction of the chemical capacity of the Syrian army without having taken measures of force, without military threats or impositions.
The decision was unanimous and, in the same way, the benefit was general, since it was an objective that protected the freedoms of citizens, promoting dialogue and ruling out all forms of violence.