From the Latin unanimis, unanimous is an adjective that refers to the set of opinions or comments that coincide in opinion or opinion. Something unanimous has no differences or contradictions between its elements.
For example: “The jury decided unanimously in favor of the manager” , “I consulted the rest of the team and it is unanimous: we will not appear in the next tournament if we are not paid what corresponds” , “By unanimous decision, the Argentine boxer won the world title by beating the rival on points”. The concept usually appears in cases where there are votes to resolve an issue. Such votes must have a limited number of votes, since, in case of massive (such as electoral suffrage), unanimity is impossible. On the other hand, if few people vote, it is very likely that a unanimous decision can be recorded.
In boxing, there is talk of a unanimous decision when all judges agree when it comes to naming the winner of a fight. This means that different judges assign a higher score to the same boxer, without any of them having any other appreciation of the actions. Sometimes the notion of unanimity is used in a general sense to refer to consensus. With expressions like “Society unanimously rejected the government’s measures” , an attempt is made to convey the scarce support received for a position, although this does not mean that no one among thousands or millions has manifested the opposite. Historical unanimity September 28, 2013 represents a milestone in Syria’s recent history: the UN unanimously resolved to destroy its chemical arsenal. After a civil war that devastated their lands for two long years, the use of chemical weapons was finally condemned, in addition to calling for their elimination. It is noteworthy that this was not an imposition, but a peaceful appeal: the Syrian government was not threatened with retaliation if it did not fulfill its part of the agreement. This historic unanimity on the part of the United Nations was a relief for a country that had not received news of hope for 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 an agreement between Russia and North America in early September 2013, following a United Nations investigation into the use of sarin gas (a colorless, odorless liquid used in chemical attacks and declared by the UN as a Weapon of Mass Destruction) in a clash outside the Syrian capital that claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent people.
The Charter drawn up by the United Nations specified that the Security Council would have complete freedom to decide on 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 to end violence in a peaceful way, unlike so many contradictory actions that have taken place in human history. The Russian and American authorities underlined the importance of having managed to deter and reduce the chemical capacity of the Syrian army without having taken forceful measures, without threats or military impositions. The decision was unanimous and, in the same way, the benefit was general, given that it was an objective that protected the freedoms of citizens, promoting dialogue and discarding all forms of violence.