By: ASAD FEROZ
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN), created for “the maintenance of international peace and security” (UN, 1945). The power to veto, which is granted to its five permanent members (P5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), plays a central role in the decisions made by the UNSC. Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter establishes that all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with “the concurring votes of the permanent members” (ibid). This means that if any of these nations cast a negative vote, the resolution will not pass, regardless of how much international support it has. This essay will examine the question of whether this power to veto should be revoked. While supporters of the veto contend that it is integral to maintaining international stability and avoiding detrimental decisions, critics argue that it reflects an undemocratic lack of representation and undermines the Council’s effectiveness. In this essay, I will explore arguments for and against both perspectives through the themes of politics and ethics, before presenting a reasoned judgement.
From a political stance, the main objection towards the P5’s veto power is that it subverts the democratic principles upon which the UN was founded. The UN Charter asserts the principle of “sovereign equality of all its Members” (UN, 1945). Yet, the veto power disproportionately empowers a small group of nations, allowing them to block resolutions even when there is majority support. As noted by Lopez-Claros (2022), this authority erodes the legitimacy of the UNSC, as it perpetuates an imbalanced process of decisionmaking, which does not take into account the voices of most member states. Thus, powerful nations are able to protect their own interests without facing consequences, even if those interests conflict with broader global needs (ibid). Moreover, the veto power preserves a historical power imbalance that does not reflect today’s geopolitical realities. The P5 are composed from the global order of 1945, not the multipolar world of the 21st century. Thus, emerging powers such as Brazil, India, and South Africa, along with regions like Africa and Latin America, remain underrepresented. These regions have long called for reform, as highlighted by the Council on Foreign Relations, with African nations calling for outright abolishment of the veto (CFR, 2024). This lack of inclusion increases frustration amongst states that remain underrepresented in global decision-making and damages the legitimacy of the UNSC as an international agency.
Lopez-Claros’ critique of the veto is policy-focused and provides expert insight. He is the executive director of the Global Governance Forum, an organization dedicated to improving international cooperation and global governance, and has over thirty years of experience in international organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Thus, the reader can have faith that the evidence he provides is credible. The CFR, while based in the US, provides a balanced and detailed overview of the UNSC. Despite being primarily Western-based, these sources do not underemphasize the voices of the Global South— which advocates most strongly for reform—and thus offer substantial support for the argument that the veto system is outdated and unrepresentative.
Examining the topic through the theme of ethics reveals another major criticism of the veto: it stalls action during humanitarian crises. Permanent members often use their vetoes to protect allies or advance their own agendas, even when it compromises civilian lives. Oxfam International’s report (Cohen et al., 2024) highlights how the veto causes gridlock within the UNSC—resulting in inaction in critical situations like Syria and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), and a failure to hold violators accountable— ultimately contributing to a humanitarian catastrophe. In 2023 alone, over 100 million people were denied life-saving assistance due to the veto and resulting deadlock (ibid). In Syria, Russia and China have used their vetoes fifteen times since 2014 to block resolutions aimed at sanctioning or intervening against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, despite overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses. This resulted in over 600,000 deaths in Syria since the conflict began in 2011 and left 15.3 million people in need of humanitarian assistance as of 2024 (ibid). In the OPT, in November 2024 the US vetoed a ceasefire resolution in Gaza, despite support from all fourteen other UNSC members (Alameri, 2024). This marked the forty-ninth time the US had used its veto to support Israel, and came at a time when Israel had killed nearly 45,000 Palestinians, and also restricted aid access in the territory (ibid). This clearly shows the US prioritizing its alliance over civilian protection. Such acts of vested interest paralyze the UNSC, preventing effective responses to crises requiring immediate action. This results in a failure to safeguard vulnerable populations, hence weakening the UN’s ability to promote peace and security.
Oxfam International is a respected humanitarian NGO with a long history of advocating for social justice and human rights. Its report contains strong statistics and case studies that illustrate the impact veto power has on humanitarian efforts. This data, gathered from UN sources, strengthens its reliability. The emphasis on the impact of the veto power is relevant to the issues of this essay, thus serving as a useful source, and its use of UN sources to gather data makes it more credible. Alameri’s article offers a well-structured analysis on how the veto power has eroded the UN’s credibility, supported by historical examples and expert opinions. The article uses strong statistics and historical evidence to support its arguments which show a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the veto.
Collectively, these sources are relevant, reliable, and credible.
On the other hand, from a political perspective, supporters of the veto maintain that the veto is an indispensable component of global stability as it guarantees that the interests of the world’s major powers are upheld. In the absence of such guarantees, the major powers may defect from the UN or act alone, thus sabotaging the very basis of global cooperation. The veto power in essence prevents a power vacuum, so that states are not able to act unilaterally or without taking the interests of others into account. According to Wouters and Ruys (2005), the veto mechanism was necessary to persuade the major powers to join the UN in the first place. It acts as a safety net so that they can veto actions they see as dangerous to their national interests and the world at large. Krastev (2015) corroborates this argument, adding that the veto has prevented direct military conflicts between the P5 by making it impossible for the Council to be used to authorize action against any of them or their immediate allies without a consensus. Without the veto, the UN stands to lose powerful countries, which will end up withdrawing their participation in international cooperation. This was the case with the League of Nations, which struggled to enforce its mandates due to the absence of key global powers—thus being unable to prevent the outbreak of World War II (Wouters & Ruys, 2005). By contrast, the inclusion of the veto power in the UNSC was intended to ensure the continued involvement of major powers in the UN framework, thereby preserving the system’s authority and effectiveness (ibid).
Wouters and Ruys are a Professor of International Law and a research assistant, respectively, thus have significant authority in this field. Their academic backgrounds enhance the credibility of their analysis on UNSC reform, ensuring that their arguments are grounded in established legal principles and a thorough understanding of international governance. However, while the relevance of their analysis remains strong, updating their discussion with more recent developments would make it more applicable to current debates in international governance. Krastev’s views are written for the Valdai Discussion Club, which, while influential, is affiliated with Russian strategic interests and thus may present arguments in favour of maintaining the veto in alignment with Russia’s foreign policy. Its perspective should be balanced with sources from other UN members for a more holistic view.
Furthermore, from an ethical standpoint, another defense of the veto is that it ensures deliberate decision-making, preventing hasty, one-sided, or detrimental actions. By requiring consensus among the P5, the system ensures that resolutions are thoroughly negotiated and evaluated before action is taken. Thus, the UNSC does not act on impulsive or poorly planned proposals that might escalate conflicts, or lack comprehensive followup mechanisms. Security Council Report (2015) notes that the threat of a veto compels drafters of resolutions to engage in extensive diplomacy and compromise. This thus improves the quality of outcomes. Moreover, the original rationale for the veto was to prevent the UN from overcommitting to actions that lacked the support of the world’s most powerful states (ibid). This could result in failure or unintended consequences. For instance, if the UNSC were to approve a military intervention without the support of key military powers, the resolution could be ineffective or even dangerous to implement. An example of the veto preventing a potentially hasty decision occurred in 2022 when China and Russia vetoed a resolution that would have imposed stricter sanctions on North Korea due to its nuclear weapons program. North Korea defended its actions as essential for self-defense against perceived U.S. threats. Russia and China argued that previous sanctions had failed to foster a solution, and additional sanctions could lead to increased tensions and instability in the region, as well as exacerbate humanitarian issues. Thus, by exercising the veto, they prevented actions that could have further isolated North Korea economically and politically, and emphasized the need for dialogue and negotiation rather than punitive measures (Al Jazeera, 2022).
Security Council Report (SCR) is a non-profit organization which tracks the actions of the Security Council and its organs. It is a reliable source as it provides a neutral and detailed analysis of the UNSC veto, documenting how the veto has influenced UNSC procedures and decisions along with providing understanding of the veto’s original intent. Their work has been cited by multiple media organizations including Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, BBC, and UN Radio, which boosts SCR’s credibility. Al Jazeera, like other news agencies, is known for adhering to basic journalistic principles regarding balance, verification, and objectivity, thus strengthening the trustworthiness of the article. Because the article offers all perspectives without taking a side, its credibility is further reinforced.
The decision to remove veto power from P5 members is a complicated issue. While the veto demonstrates undemocratic characteristics and can serve vested interests, it remains essential for maintaining international stability. And while it helps avoid rash decisions, it can make the UNSC unable to respond effectively to urgent humanitarian emergencies. Initially, I believed that the veto power should be completely revoked, however, over the course of my research I have realized that a complete abolition of the veto may be unrealistic and destabilizing, potentially creating a power vacuum that could lead to reckless actions by nations. Instead, my research (Wouters & Ruys, 2005; SCR, 2015; CFR, 2024) suggests that a practical approach towards UNSC reform involves imposing limitations on veto use in situations involving mass atrocities or direct P5 member interests. The implementation of a requirement for multiple P5 members to agree on a veto, together with expanding veto access to more states, would satisfy existing criticisms while maintaining the veto’s stabilizing role. Giving the UN General Assembly (UNGA) more authority and making its resolutions legally binding could also make global decision-making more representative. To explore the veto further, I will take a structured research approach. I will review existing literature to understand current debates, analyze case studies of veto use in humanitarian crises, and investigate alternative decision-making systems like weighted voting or rotating veto power. I will also examine how regional organizations, such as the African Union and European Union, function without a veto. If possible, I will conduct interviews with experts in international relations for additional insights. Ultimately, I aim to develop an understanding of how the veto system can be reformed to make international governance fairer and more effective.
Bibliography
Al Jazeera. (2022). China, Russia defend N Korea vetoes at UN General Assembly. [online] Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/9/china-russia-explainn-korea-vetoes-at-un-meeting [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Alameri, R. (2024). How Security Council veto power politics has eroded UN’s credibility. [online] Arab News. Available at: https://www.arabnews.com/node/2583312/middle-east [Accessed 19 Apr. 2024].
CFR.org Editors. (2024). The UN Security Council. [online] Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Cohen, M., Croome, A., Nalbandian, E., Chetcuti, P. and Truscott, M. (2024). Vetoing humanity: How a few powerful nations hijacked global peace and why reform is needed at the UN Security Council. Oxfam International. [PDF] Available at:
https://webassets.oxfamamerica.org/media/documents/Oxfam_Vetoing_Humanity_R eport.pdf?_gl=1 [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Krastev, I. (2015). UN Security Council: Veto Option Does More Good Than Bad. [online] Valdai Club. Available at: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/un-securitycouncil-veto-option-does-more-good-than-bad/ [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Lopez-Claros, A. (2022). The Origins of the UN Veto and Why it Should be Abolished.
[online] Global Governance Forum. Available at: https://globalgovernanceforum.org/origins-un-veto-why-it-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Security Council Report. (2015). The Veto. [PDF] Security Council Report, Inc. Available at: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/research_report_3_the_veto_2015.pdf [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
United Nations. (1945). UN Charter. [online] Available at:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].
Wouters, J., and Ruys, T. (2005). Security Council reform: A new veto for a new century? [PDF] Available at: https://aei.pitt.edu/8980/1/ep9.pdf [Accessed 19 Apr. 2025].