Vetoing the Veto: The U.N. Security Council Needs Reform, but It Is Unlikely to Ever See It
The United Nations Security Council was established as a principal organ of the U.N.[1] It is comprised of fifteen members: five permanent and ten non-permanent.[2] The permanent member states include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Russian Federation, each of whom holds the power to veto any decision or proposed resolution.[3] While the U.N. Charter does not explicitly provide veto power, it is inferred by the Article 27 requirement that decisions of the Security Council “be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.”[4] The remaining ten non-permanent members have a single vote without veto power and are elected by the U.N. General Assembly for two-year terms.[5]
This structure leaves considerable power in the hands of the five permanent members, allowing them to further their own national interests and foreign policy, and prevent enforcement action against themselves. A review of failed resolutions indicates this power has been used at least 293 times, 120 times by Russia and at least 82 times by the U.S.[6] Of the vetoes cast by the U.S., at least 53 have been to protect Israel,[7] whose security is a “long-standing cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.”[8] Pursuant to this policy goal, the U.S. vetoed a draft resolution condemning Israel’s use of force against civilians in Palestine.[9] Earlier this year, Russia vetoed a resolution submitted by Albania and the U.S. which would have required Russia to “immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine, and withdraw all its military forces immediately, completely, and unconditionally from that country’s territory,”[10] thereby protecting itself from enforcement action. Both of these examples illustrate how permanent members use veto power to further their own interests, even at the expense of international peace and security.
The veto power thus limits the Security Council’s effectiveness and should be abolished. A core purpose of the U.N. is “to maintain international peace and security”[11] and the “primary responsibility” for such is conferred upon the Security Council.[12] As shown, veto power allows permanent members to put their own interests before their Security Council responsibilities. It also likely distorts public perception of peace and security threats, as resolutions only target some states, even while others display similar conduct.[13] It is therefore unclear how the Security Council can be fully effective in maintaining international peace and security while veto power is available. To prevent permanent members from undermining their responsibilities, the veto power should be abolished.
Unfortunately, it probably never will be. Amendment to the U.N. Charter requires an affirmative vote by two thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by the two thirds of U.N. members—including all five permanent members of the Security Council.[14] The requirement of ratification by all permanent members all but ensures that veto power will never be abolished. From the permanent members’ perspective, maintaining veto power is essential to protecting their interests.[15] Even other less radical reforms, such as expanding the number of seats on the Security Council or expanding the number of permanent members with veto power, is unlikely to occur. Permanent members would likely recognize that any form of expansion could weaken their veto power and thus conflict with their interests.
While abolishing permanent member veto power is important to ensure the Security Council satisfies its responsibilities effectively, it is unlikely to happen. When any of the five permanent members become threats to international peace and security, as Russia and China are now,[16] states may have to take matters into their own hands.
Blake Elwood is a staff member of Fordham International Law Journal Volume XLVI.
[1] U.N. Charter art. 7.
[2] U.N. Charter art. 23, ¶ 1.
[3] Id.; U.N. Charter art. 27, ¶ 3.
[4] U.N. Charter art. 27, ¶ 3.
[5] Id. at ¶ 1; U.N. Charter art. 23, ¶ 2.
[6] See The Veto, Sec. Council Rep. (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php.
[7] Id.
[8] See Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Relations with Israel: Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet, U.S. Dep’t of State (Jan. 20, 2021), https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel/.
[9] See Rodrigo Campos, U.S. Vetoes U.N. Resolution Denouncing Violence Against Palestinians, Reuters (June 1, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestine-un-vote/u-s-vetoes-u-n-resolution-denouncing-violence-against-palestinians-idUSKCN1IX5UW.
[10] See Press Release, Security Council, Security Council Fails to Adopt Draft Resolution on Ending Ukraine Crisis, as Russian Federation Wields Veto, U.N. Press Release SC/14808 (Feb. 25, 2022).
[11] U.N. Charter art. 1, ¶ 1.
[12] U.N. Charter art. 24, ¶ 1.
[13] The U.N. Security Council has previously called on states to “prevent and fight against genocide.” Press Release, Security Council, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2150 (2014), Security Council Calls for Recommitment to Fight against Genocide, U.N. Press Release SC/11356 (Apr. 16, 2014). The U.S. has accused China of genocide for its actions in Xinjiang, while the U.N. Human Rights Office states China’s actions “could constitute crimes against humanity.” See Lindsay Maizland, China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Council on Foreign Rels.,
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights (Sept. 22, 2022). The U.S. has also declared the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. See H.R. Con. Res. 467, 108th Cong. (July 2, 2004). The Security Council demanded Sudan disarm and bring to justice those who committed human rights abuses and violated international law. S.C. Res. 1556, ¶ 6 (July 30, 2004). But the Council has said nothing about China.
[14] U.N. Charter art. 108.
[15] See generally Elliott Abrams, Why “Reforming” the United Nations Security Council is a Bad Idea, Council on Foreign Rels.: Blog (Sept. 23, 2022), https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-reforming-united-nations-security-council-bad-idea.
[16] See Maizland, supra note 13; Jill Lawless et al., NATO Says Russia is ‘Most Significant and Direct Threat’ to Members, Security, PBS News Hour (Jun. 29, 2022), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/nato-says-russia-is-most-significant-and-direct-threat-to-members-security.
This is a student blog post and in no way represents the views of the Fordham International Law Journal.