Abolition of the right of veto in the UN Security Council for better or worse?

Overview:

After World War I and World War II, countries around the world took precautionary measures to
prevent the recurrence of such devastating wars. After World War II, a United Nations agency was also
established as part of these efforts. However, the vetoes of the United States, Britain, China, France, and
Russia left the important issues of world peace unresolved, an unfortunate problem that continues to
this day. The following lines assess whether this veto should remain or be permanently overridden.

Introduction:

The principle of veto is in Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, which gives one vote to every 15
members of the Security Council. In addition, affirmative votes of at least 9 of the 15 member states are
procedurally significant. On other matters, 9 votes are required, including those of the permanent
members (United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia). A resolution cannot be passed if
one of the permanent members of the Security Council has vetoed it. However, if the member state
concerned does not participate or abstains from voting, the veto does not apply.

The UN Security Council consists of 15 members with five permanent members (as above) and 10 non-
permanent members, five of whom are elected annually for two-year terms. The five permanent
members of the Security Council have the power to veto or reject resolutions submitted to the Council
with or without the consent of the majority of members.

Many experts believe that this unilateral power undermines global peace in many major territorial and
regional disputes where its permanent members struggle with their agendas. On the other hand, the
veto is believed to help the United Nations maintain a fragile balance in decision-making by keeping up
with current world powers. As a result, many global and individual stakeholders in world peace are
wondering whether this veto is a boon or a hindrance to global peace and stability. To answer this
question, we must examine and analyze its multifaceted aspects.
ABOLISHING THE VETO POWER IN THE UN 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
the recurrence of similar catastrophic wars. As part of these efforts, the United Nations was also created
after the Second World War. However, due to the veto power of the US, UK, China, France and Russia,
key issues related to world peace remain unresolved, a sorry state of affairs that continues to this day. In
the following lines, it was evaluated whether this right of veto should remain present, or should it be
definitively abolished?

Introduction:

The veto has its origins in Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, which allows each of the fifteen
members of the Security Council to have one vote. In addition, the consent of at least nine of the fifteen
member countries is important for procedural matters. In other matters, nine votes are needed,
including those of the permanent members, i.e. the US, the UK, France, China and Russia. When a
permanent member country of the UN Security Council vetoes any resolution, it cannot be passed.
However, if a member of such a country is not present or abstains from voting, this will not result in the
exercise of the right of veto.

The fifteen members of the UNSC have five permanent members (as stated above) and ten non-
permanent members, five of whom are elected for two-year terms each year. The five permanent
members of the RB can veto or overrule any resolution presented to the council with or without
majority approval.

Many experts believe that this unilateral power worsens world peace in many major territorial and
regional disputes, in which permanent member countries have their own ulterior motives to serve. On
the other hand, it is also believed that the veto power can help the UN create a delicate balance in its
decision-making by aligning itself with current world powers. As a result, many global and individual
stakeholders in world peace wonder whether this veto power is a blessing or a hindrance to world peace
and stability. To answer this question, we need to thoroughly examine and analyze its diverse aspects.

Veto power in the UNSC:

As in most cases, issues of promoting international peace and security are also biased towards the
interests and foreign policy agendas of major world powers. According to Article 27, paragraph 3 of the
UN Charter, all substantive decisions of the Security Council are to be taken in accordance with the
affirmative votes of all five permanent member states. If this is not the case, any resolution relating to a
resolution brought before the UNSC may be rejected by any permanent member. This power thus allows
selected world powers to dictate the world order in favor of their collective and separate motives.

Until now, various countries have used the veto power to serve their implicit and explicit foreign
interests. Russia has used this power at least 120 times. The US has repeatedly used the veto power to
cover Israel's illegal activities against the Palestinians and its neighboring Arab countries. China hardly
uses this power. Over the past three decades, new trends have emerged regarding the use of the veto.
Russia, for example, has persistently used its veto power over the past decade to avoid stopping the
fighting in Syria. Similarly, India and Israel have also continued to violate human rights in Kashmir and
Palestine by using their allies who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Why is veto reform necessary?

Although it may seem obvious that the veto system needs to be changed, it is useful to explain the main
reasons, as these will help determine whether or not the change will be successful. From a legal point of
view, two of the many reasons why the veto system should be changed stand out, which have been set
out below:

A. The power of veto is contrary to international rules and equality:

The right of veto is incompatible with the concept of a rules-based international order for the first
reason. Samuel Moyn recently put it aptly: “We may not tolerate a criminal law that openly gives the
most powerful members of society a get-out-of-jail-free card. Yet thanks to their veto in the Security
Council, some states have a stack of cards that have never been charged – and they can never run out.

b. Hegemony and monopoly of world powers:

We recognized that states sometimes fail to fulfill their international obligations and that this may be
compatible with a functioning system of international law. However, the concept of a rules-based
international order is made a mockery of a system in which the most powerful states can act contrary to
the most basic rules of the international legal order and can, if they choose, protect themselves from
legal consequences through legal process.

C. The need for a collective security system:

The second motivation for the reform is the strengthening of the collective security system. In general,
denial has time and again authorized military activities that contradicted the primary rationale of the
United Nations: the promotion of global harmony and security. Similarly, the veto power makes it
impossible for the Security Council to fulfill its fundamental duty to keep pace with global harmony and
security.

Importance of power of veto:

First, Russia and China are not the most wasteful users of the veto, contrary to popular belief. This
distinction has been held by the United States since the 1970s, usually on solutions that criticize Israel.
Second, in general, the use of veto power has decreased significantly since the end of the virus war.
Naturally, the veto threat has significant indirect effects on Council action; however, the historical trend
is toward greater Council consensus and against random use of the veto.

Perhaps the most basic point of the veto is that you could never have a Security Chamber without it. In
principle, major powers will not grant a worldwide body limiting legitimate experts on matters of
harmony and security unless they are certain that it will not change their inclinations. As a result, the
real alternative to a Security Council veto is to have none, or at least not in a recognizable form. While it
may not be a Russian no, it's a compromise the couple might want to make. Frustrating as it is, the
Security Council is still a very useful body because it makes superpower security consultations a thing of
the past.

The legitimization of the veto power is usually situated in the light of a legitimate interest in super-
durable individuals and the possibility that harmony and security are only conceivable under the
assumption of extraordinary powers' cooperation.

The arguments of the permanent members at the San Francisco conference included: that their priv