From Latin unanimis, unanimous It is an adjective that refers to set of opinions or comments that match the opinion or opinion . Something unanimous shows no differences or contradictions between its elements .
For example: "The jury ruled unanimously in favor of the employer", “I have consulted the rest of the team and it is unanimous: we will not appear in the next tournament if we do not they pay what corresponds to", "In a unanimous decision, the Argentine boxer kept the world title by beating his rival by points".
The concept usually appears in cases where there are votes to settle an issue. These 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 , talk about unanimous ruling when all the jurors coincide when naming the winner of a combat. This means that the different judges give a higher score to the same boxer, without any having had another appreciation of the actions.
Occasionally, the notion of unanimous is used in a sense general to mention the consensus . With expressions like "Society, unanimously, has rejected government measures", we try to convey the little support received by a position, although this does not mean that no person 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 destroying its chemical arsenal. After a civil war that had razed 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 reprisals if it did not comply with its part of the agreement.
This historic unanimity on the part of the United Nations Organization was a respite for a country I had not received news of hope in a long time. The use of chemical weapons on their part was known and it was only a matter of time before the international community did anything about it.
The resolution was based on a agreement between Russia and North America at the beginning of September 2013, after an investigation by the United Nations was carried out to verify the use of sarin gas (a colorless and colorless liquid, used in chemical attacks and declared by the Un as weapon of mass destruction) in a confrontation that took place outside the Syrian capital, which claimed the lives of hundreds of innocents.
The Charter written by the United Nations specified that the Security Council would have total freedom to decide the appropriate procedure, without the use of armed force, if the expected response was not obtained from Syria.
It was an unprecedented resolution that I was looking for end violence in a peaceful way, unlike so many contradictory actions that took place in the history of mankind. Russian and North American authorities stressed the importance of having achieved deterrence and reduction of the chemical capacity of the Syrian army without having taken force measures, without military threats or impositions.
The decision was unanimous and, in the same way, the benefit was general, given that it was an objective that protected the liberties of citizens, promoting dialogue and ruling out all forms of violence.