“Veto Power in the Security Council: Promoting Peace or Conflict?

”
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the most important organ of the UN, responsible
for maintaining international peace and security. Decisions of the Security Council on all other
matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of
the permanent members.1 It was agreed by the drafters (of UN Charter) that if any one of the five
permanent members cast a negative vote in the 15-member Security Council, the resolution or
decision would not be approved. However, the veto power of its five permanent members (P5) –
The US, Russia, France, The UK, and China – has been a subject of frequent criticism and demands
for reform.
The P5 have often used the veto for their national interests or foreign policy goals, preventing the
adoption of 229 draft resolutions since 1946. The Soviet Union/Russia has cast 123 vetoes, the US
83, the UK 30, France 18, and China 10. While some argue that it is a necessary evil that has
allowed the UN to take binding action, others view it as an undemocratic and anachronistic
privilege that undermines the UNSC's credibility and effectiveness.

Arguments in favor of Veto Power:

The argument given by the permanent members in support of the veto was that they had saved the
world from the Axis Powers, and only they could meet any future threats to international peace
and security. They assured the participants that they would jointly provide security to the world,
and for this it was essential that all decisions of the Security Council have their concurrence.2
Some other arguments:

1. In order to seek the balanced outcome, building a consensus among the status quo power
is important. With members possessing veto power, UN is safeguarded against any entity
dominating it.
2. Without the veto, the UN would have suffered the same fate as the “League of Nations”
which lacked an enforcement mechanism.3 The veto power enabled the permanent
members to participate in the UN, giving it the ability to take binding action.
3. The veto allows Security Council members to set aside those issues on which they cannot
agree but to remain engaged on those others, the great majority of cases, where they can.

However, the concept of the veto has been criticized as leaving the Security Council “paralyzed”
and “passive” in situations where it was most needed.4 It has been interpreted as a discriminatory
and biased privilege given to five countries to dictate their own will to some 200 countries as they

1
Article 27(3) Of UN Charter
2
Dilip Sinha,“Veto Provision in UN Charter: Issues and Dimensions”, Indian Foreign Affairs Journal Vol. 14, No. 4,
October–December 2019
3
Bellamly and Davies , “Don’t be too quick to condemn the UN Security Council power of veto”, the conversation
2014
4
(Global R2P, Estonia, 2015: 2) Remarks by Mr Sven Jurgenson (Permanent representative of Estonia)
wish. If the UN was created to support and represent its Member States equally, then why some
states have higher status than others?

Arguments against the veto power:

1. Many UN members view the veto as “anachronistic and unjust”.5 Pakistani Ambassador
Ahmad Kamal criticized it saying “In a democracy, no one can be more equal than others”.
2. The veto has been criticized for allowing the P5 to block action on genocides, crimes
against humanity, and other mass atrocities to promote their political self-interest. For
instance, The UNSC’s inaction in cases like Rwanda, Srebrenica, and Syria has drawn
heavy criticism.
3. Some have expressed their fear that the idea of “sovereign equality” is violated by the veto
concept, and that it poses significant obstacles to the practical fulfillment of the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security. 6

Reforms and Solutions:

Three restraining initiatives have been proposed which are intended to curb the P5’s veto power
in a positive way in order to protect Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter and provide greater security
for its Member States.

1. The French initiative, 2013: The permanent members commit collectively to abstain from
exercising the veto in situations involving recognized mass atrocities.
2. The ACT initiative, 2015: The Code of Conduct calls upon all members of the UNSC,
elected and permanent, to not vote against any credible draft resolution intended to prevent
or halt mass atrocities.
3. The Elders’ proposal, 2015: The P5 must not use their veto without explaining their
decision and proposing an alternative plan in accordance with international law that can
achieve the same goals.

Conclusion:
The P5's responsible use of its veto power, in accordance with the UN’s core objectives of world
peace and security rather than personal gain, is essential to the reliability and efficacy of the UNSC.
With evolving global dynamics, the UN might need significant changes, such as expanding
permanent membership or abolishing the veto entirely to address the complicated issues of modern
times.

- Bhaj Narayan Regmi

5
Kourosh Ziabari, Iranian journalist, writer and media correspondent, Global research, 2013
6
Emmy Dallas, The Security Council’s Sine Qua Non: The Veto Power, Rutgers School of Arts and science, 2018