The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the most powerful body of the UN, entrusted with maintaining international peace. It has the authority to issue binding resolutions, authorize military interventions, and refer cases to international judicial bodies, making it a key player in shaping international law.
However, the decisions made by the UNSC don’t always prioritize “international peace.” This is primarily due to the veto powers granted to the five permanent members (P5) – the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K. – allowing these states to block any substantive resolution, regardless of global impact. While this mechanism was designed to prevent conflict among the major powers, it has arguably worsened tensions and contributed to the rise of other global disputes. Many believe that the veto system excludes a significant portion of the global population and allows the P5 to act in their own self-interest, even at the expense of global justice.
These vetoes are often the root cause of inaction by the UN on major international conflicts.
In 2022, Russia vetoed a resolution that described its attempts to unlawfully annex four regions of Ukraine as “a threat to international peace and security.” This raised concerns about the veto remaining with the P5 even in situations where they are the perpetrators.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, “The veto in the hands of the aggressor is what drove the UN into a dead end. No matter who you are, the existing UN system still makes you less than the veto power that only a few have and that is used by one – Russia – to the detriment of all other UN members.”
Even in cases where the P5 are not directly involved, there have been multiple instances of vetoes being issued for the individual diplomatic interests of the members. Since February 16, 1946, when the first veto was recorded by the USSR on a resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria, the veto has been used roughly 293 times.
Efforts to restrict the veto powers have largely been unsuccessful, with many of these attempts being vetoed by the P5 themselves. Since the mid-2000s, France has advocated for voluntary restraint in the use of the veto by the P5 members. In September 2014, during the 69th session of the General Assembly, France, alongside Mexico, organized a ministerial-level event to promote this idea. In a summary of the event, the co-chairs urged the P5 to “voluntarily and collectively pledge not to use the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and large-scale war crimes.” However, among the permanent members, only the U.K. supported the proposal.
The veto powers heavily restrict the UN’s ability to make significant changes regarding modern war crimes, conflicts, and genocide. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has long objected to the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, has stated numerous times that “the world is bigger than five.” The concentration of power in the hands of these five states disregards the lives and interests of billions across the world. While conflicts continue in Syria, Palestine, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, the UNSC fails to deliver justice as the diplomatic interests of the P5 seem to take precedence.
As seen in numerous instances, including Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the veto power has stalled meaningful resolutions, leaving the international community powerless in the face of crises. Efforts to reform or limit the veto system have been unsuccessful, with resistance primarily coming from the very nations that benefit most from its existence. Without significant reform, the UNSC will continue to face criticism for its inaction and its failure to represent the interests of the global population. The call for change, as echoed by leaders like Erdogan, underscores the need to rethink the balance of power within the Council, ensuring it serves not just a few, but the world at large.
Written by Ananya Nambiar
