ABOLISHMENT OF VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY COUNCIL; FOR BETTER OR WORSE?

Abstract:

After World War I and World War II, countries around the world tried to take prudent steps to
minimize such catastrophic wars from happening again. The United Nations Organization was
also formed as part of these efforts after the Second World War. However, due to the veto power
of USA, UK, China, France, and Russia, key issues related to world peace remain unsolved, a
sorry predicament that continues to this day. In the following lines, it has been evaluated that
whether this veto power should remain present, or should it be abolished for the good?

Introduction:

The veto power finds its origins in article 27 of the United Nations Charter that allows every of the fifteen
member of the Security Council to have one vote. Moreover, affirmative vote of at least nine of fifteen
member countries is important for procedural matters. On others matters, nine votes are required,
including those of the permanent members, i.e. USA, UK, France, China, and Russia. 1 When a
permanent UNSC member country vetoes any resolution, it cannot be passed. However, if such country’s
member is absent, or abstains from voting, it will not amount as the use of veto power.

The fifteen members UNSC has five permanent members (as stated above) and ten non-
permanent members, five of which are elected for a two-year term every year. The five
permanent members of the UNSC can veto or set-aside any resolution presented before the
council with or without the consent of the majority.2

1
“United Nations Charter (Full Text).” United Nations. Accessed July 31, 2023. https://www.un.org/en/about-
us/un-charter/full-text.
2
“United Nations Security Council |.” United Nations. Accessed July 29, 2023.
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/#:~:text=The%20Security%20Council%20has%20primary,to%20comply
%20with%20Council%20decisions.
Many experts believe that this unilateral power exacerbates world peace on many main territorial
and regional disputes in which the permanent member countries have their own ulterior motives
to serve. On the other hand, it is also believed that veto power can help UN create a fragile
equilibrium in its decision by getting in line with the present world powers. Consequently, many
global and individual stakeholders in world peace wonder that is this veto power is a blessing, or
is it an impediment in the way of peace and stability in the world. For answering this question,
we need to examine and analyze its multifarious facets in considerable length.

Veto Power in the UNSC:

As in most cases, the issues of upholding international peace and security are also tilted towards
the interests and foreign policy agendas of great world powers. According to article 27 (3) of the
UN charter, all substantive decisions of the Security Council are to be made in accordance with
the affirmative votes of all five permanent member states. If this is not the case then any
resolution regarding a presented before the UNSC can be dismissed by any permanent member.
This power thus allows selected world powers to dictate world order in the favour of their
collective and separate motives.

Until now, the veto power has been used by various countries to serve their implicit and explicit
foreign interests. Russia has used this power on at least 120 occasions. USA has used veto power
repeatedly to provide cover to Israel’s illegal activities against the Palestinians and its
neighboring Arab countries. China has used this power scarcely. During the past three decades,
new trends have emerged regarding veto power’s usage. For example, Russia has persistently
used its veto power during the past decade to avoid cessation of hostilities in Syria. Similarly,
India and Israel have also continued their human rights violations in Kashmir and Palestine
respectively by using their allies that are permanent members of UNSC.3

Significance of Veto Power:

First of all, Russia and China are not the most wasteful veto users, contrary to popular belief.
This distinction has been held by the United States since the 1970s, typically on resolution
proposals that criticize Israel. Second, in general utilization of the denial has declined notably
3
“The Veto : UN Security Council Working Methods.” Security Council Report. Accessed July 29, 2023.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php.
since the finish of the Virus War. Naturally, the threat of the veto has significant indirect effects
on Council deliberations; however, the historical trend is toward greater Council consensus and
against the veto's casual use.4

Maybe the most basic point about the denial is that you could never have a Security Chamber
without it. Significant powers will basically not award a worldwide body restricting legitimate
expert on issues of harmony and security except if they are sure that it won't bias their
inclinations. As a result, the real alternative to the Security Council's veto is not having one at all,
or at least not in a recognizable form. As chafing as the possible Russian no will be, that is a
tradeoff that couple of might want to make. Even though it's frustrating, the Security Council is
still a very useful body because it makes great-power security consultations a thing of the past.5

The legitimizations for the veto power is normally situated in light of a legitimate concern for the
super durable individuals and the possibility that harmony and security is just conceivable
assuming the extraordinary powers are cooperating.6

The permanent members' arguments at the San Francisco conference included: that their
privileged status was linked to a responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,
that the veto power was a reflection of political realities, that the United Nations would collapse
if it attempted to carry out enforcement actions against a permanent member, that it prevented
the Security Council from making a decision that could harm relations between the permanent
members.7

As per one author in the San Francisco meeting, there were four reasons apparent at the
gathering: 1) unanimity was thought of as essential for harmony; 2) extremely durable
individuals expected to safeguard their public advantages; 3) the need to shield minority groups
from majority coalitions' excessive dominance; and 4) the need to avoid hasty Security Council
decisions." In 1993, Australian unfamiliar pastor Gareth Evans composed that the denial was laid

4
Bosco, David. “In Defense of the Veto Power.” Foreign Policy, January 31, 2012.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/31/in-defense-of-the-veto-power/.
5
Ibid.
6
Schindlmayr. “Obstructing the Security Council: The Use of the Veto in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of
the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international 3, no. 2 (2001): 218–34.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050120956965.
7
Ibid.
out to guarantee that the Assembled Countries didn't focus on things it would not be able to
completely finish because of extraordinary power resistance.8

Why Veto Power should be abolished in the UNSC?

The abovementioned averments clearly manifest that veto power in the UNSC does more harm
than benefit vis-à-vis world security and peace. It should be abolished for the following reasons:

a. Damage to the Main Goal of United Nations:

The UN and the UNSC were made to ascertain world peace and security. If the main
issues pertaining to world peace and security cannot be solved due to veto power in the
UNSC, then what else is left to discuss.
b. Rights of non-permanent Members:
Both the first and second world wars were held because weaker countries were cornered
and later antagonized by the powerful nations. If the same attitude will be shown from
UNSC member countries towards weaker countries today, chances are that these
countries will feel resentment towards international organs that claim to solve their
issues.9
c. Lack of Transparency:
The permanent member countries of the UNSC know that by using veto power, they can
get away with any violation of international law by killing millions. In the end, they can
also evade justice by vetoing any UNSC demanding inquiry regarding their role in
destroying world peace.

The undemocratic nature of the veto power has been criticized. A single nation can obstruct the
majority of the Security Council's actions. For instance, the US regularly projects solitary denials
of goals condemning Israel. The super durable individuals likewise blackball goals that
reprimand their own decisions. In 2014, Russia rejected a goal denouncing its extension of
Crimea. Amnesty International asserted that the five permanent members had "promoted their

8
Ibid.
9
Narvaez S, ‘VETO Power in the Security Council Should Be Abolished’ (The Stork, 5 January 2023)
<https://www.iestork.org/veto-power-in-the-security-council-should-be-abolished/#:~:text=The%20veto
%20does%20more%20harm,members%20frequently%20lead%20to%20vetoes.> accessed 27 June 2023
political self-interest or geopolitical interest above the interest of protecting civilians" with their
veto power.

Some critics claim that the veto power, which is restricted to the permanent five, is antiquated,
unfair, or ineffective. "The veto is an anachronism" is a quote from Peter Nadin. "In the twenty-
first century, the veto has come to be almost universally seen as a disproportionate power and an
impediment to credible international action on crises," he writes. The UN's inability to prevent
and respond to genocide, violence, and human rights violations has been attributed to the
"enormous influence of the veto power." Different nations outside the extremely durable
individuals, like the Uncommitted Development and African Association, have proposed
impediments on the rejection power. Change of the rejection power is many times remembered
for recommendations for transforming the Security Chamber.

The veto has been used to protect the permanent members' allies and to halt or prevent UN
peacekeeping and peace enforcement efforts. The danger of utilizing a denial (likewise called a
"stowed away" or "pocket" veto) may in any case have an impact regardless of whether a
rejection isn't really projected. In 1994, the US and France both compromised blackballs with
respect to the Rwandan decimation which kept the UN from undertaking a compelling
mediation, while in 1998-99 Russia and China compromised blackballs to forestall UN
intercession against the ethnic purifying in Kosovo, and again in 2004 to forestall intercession in
the Darfur slaughter.

Recommendations:

a. Abolishing the Veto Power in the UNSC:

Although it seems clichéd, abolishing veto power will allow the UNSC member countries
to decide issues pertaining to world peace and stability on equal footings.
b. Short-term Veto Power for non-permanent countries:
The temptation of having veto power in the UNSC is so huge that it seems impossible
that all five permanent member countries will agree for it. In such case, the non-
permanent countries elected for their two year terms can be given veto power for their
whole duration to temporarily shift the balance of power in their favour.
c. Mechanism for removing Veto Power:
 The UN charter can be amended in such a way that those permanent member countries
that are creating hurdles in the way of international peace and stability should be removed
promptly.
d. Expansion of UNSC’s Veto Membership:
One potential cure is to extend the security board and its super durable participation. The
current individuals have blended sentiments. The United Kingdom and France say they
support; Russia and the United States are more reticent, indicating that a large council
may not be as successful. What's more, China is dead against it. Furthermore, there are
additionally desirous local adversaries who would rather not see their neighbors succeed.
In any case, huge up-and-comer nations, for example, Brazil, India, Germany, Japan and
South Africa say there is no sensible other option.10
e. Limiting the use of Veto Force:
Limiting the use of the veto is another possible solution. When it comes to major crises,
east-west animosity has brought back paralysis in recent times. Throughout the course of
recent years, Russia has utilized its rejection on 10 events, generally to stay away from
examination over its activities in Ukraine - or to safeguard partners, like the Syrian
system, from UN pressure. Six times, China has used its veto, but it has always done so
in conjunction with Russia. The US has given blackballs multiple times beginning around
2005, each chance to shield Israel from rebuke.11
f. Waiver of Veto Power in Extreme Cases:
While Russia stands firm in its opposition, France and others argue that a quick fix would
be for permanent members to waive their veto rights in cases of mass atrocities.12

Conclusion:

It is needless to say that to oppose something, we need to see the pros and cons associated with
it. Under the aforementioned averments, it can be safely said that the veto power in the UNSC
has more disadvantages and disadvantages for the world peace. For solving this issue, it is
imperative that the world should join hands to make sure that either this power is completely
10
Borger, Julian, Bastien Inzaurralde, Cath Levett, Chris Newell, Finbar Sheehy, and Phil Maynard. “Vetoed!
What’s Wrong with the UN Security Council – and How It Could Do Better.” The Guardian, September 23,
2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
eradicated, or altered in such a way that no country can put its own agendas above the human
sufferings and deaths we see across the globe today.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borger, Julian, Bastien Inzaurralde, Cath Levett, Chris Newell, Finbar Sheehy, and Phil
Maynard. “Vetoed! What’s Wrong with the UN Security Council – and How It Could Do
Better.” The Guardian, September 23, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-
interactive/2015/sep/23/un-security-council-failing-70-years.

Bosco, David. “In Defense of the Veto Power.” Foreign Policy, January 31, 2012.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/01/31/in-defense-of-the-veto-power/.

Narvaez S, ‘VETO Power in the Security Council Should Be Abolished’ (The Stork, 5 January
2023) <https://www.iestork.org/veto-power-in-the-security-council-should-be-abolished/
#:~:text=The%20veto%20does%20more%20harm,members%20frequently%20lead%20to
%20vetoes.> accessed 27 June 2023

Schindlmayr. “Obstructing the Security Council: The Use of the Veto in the Twentieth Century.”
Journal of the History of International Law / Revue d’histoire du droit international 3, no.
2 (2001): 218–34. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718050120956965.

“The Veto : UN Security Council Working Methods.” Security Council Report. Accessed July
29, 2023. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-
veto.php.

“United Nations Charter (Full Text).” United Nations. Accessed July 31, 2023.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.

“United Nations Security Council |.” United Nations. Accessed July 29, 2023.
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/#:~:text=The%20Security%20Council%20has
%20primary,to%20comply%20with%20Council%20decisions.