The UN Security Council, established in 1945 as the cornerstone of global peacekeeping, was designed to maintain international order and respond decisively to threats against humanity. This year, as we mark the UN’s 80th anniversary, offers a chance to reflect on the UNSC more closely. Sadly, this decision-making mechanism, particularly the veto power granted to its five permanent members – the US, Russia, China, the UK and France, collectively known as the P5 – has increasingly crippled the UN’s ability to act effectively in times of peril, which seem to be growing in number these days.
The veto, intended as a tool to ensure consensus among major powers, has instead become a weapon for advancing national interests, obstructing justice and perpetuating mass atrocities. From Syria to Ukraine to Gaza, the veto is one of the the UNSC’s greatest structural flaws, undermining its credibility and betraying the principle of sovereign equality that the UN was founded to uphold.
The veto system emerged from the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where smaller and medium-sized states voiced concerns over granting disproportionate power to the P5. It allows a single permanent member to block any substantive resolution, regardless of global consensus. Despite their objections, smaller states capitulated to the superpowers’ insistence that the veto was essential for maintaining international peace. But the veto has frequently been wielded ever since to protect the P5’s national interests.
In law there is a principle called “nemo judex in causa sua” (“no one is a judge in their own cause”). In other words, the decision maker in a case should not have a personal stake in that case. The UN Charter reflects this principle in Article 27(3) by prohibiting P5 members from voting on disputes in which they are directly involved. The problem, however, is that this restriction does not extend to disputes governed by Chapter 7 of the Charter, which covers the Council’s responses to threats to peace. This has allowed permanent members to block UN Security Council action even when they are parties to the conflict, shielding themselves and their allies from accountability.
The veto’s misuse is evident in numerous crises where P5 members prioritised geopolitical agendas over humanitarian imperatives. The US, for instance, has consistently used its veto to shield Israel from UNSC criticism, regardless of the merits of these resolutions. Russia and China have similarly paralysed the UNSC in crises such as Syria, Ukraine, Myanmar and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Syria, Russian vetoes – often justified as protecting Syrian sovereignty – blocked resolutions aimed at addressing mass atrocities and shielded the Assad regime.
The veto has even been used to influence the bureaucratic shape of the UN, including the selection of the UN Secretary-General. In 1996, the US blocked Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s reappointment, citing his publication of a report exposing Israel’s deliberate attack on a UN refugee camp in Lebanon.
But in recent times, it is the deadlock over the Syrian war that sparked the most global outrage over the veto and prompted initiatives to reform the system. In 2013, French President François Hollande proposed that the P5 voluntarily refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities, such as genocide or war crimes. The French initiative, detailed by Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, suggested a “gentlemen’s agreement” among the P5, with the UN Secretary-General determining when a situation qualifies as a mass atrocity. However, the proposal’s voluntary nature and exemption for cases involving “vital national interests” rendered it toothless. The US and Russia both refused to endorse it.
Another effort, the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency (ACT) Code of Conduct, launched by 27 smaller states in 2013, calls for all UNSC members to pledge not to vote against resolutions addressing major crimes. By 2018, 116 countries supported the code, but the US and Russia remain non-signatories, and so it is likely to share the fate of the French proposal.
The paralysis caused by the veto in the face of atrocities represents a betrayal of the UN’s mission. It perpetuates suffering and emboldens perpetrators. The Security Council’s failure to act in Syria, Ukraine and Recently the war in Gaza , contrasted with its selective interventions elsewhere, fuels perceptions of bias and double standards, diminishing trust in the UN as a whole.
Reforming the veto system faces formidable obstacles, as P5 members are unlikely to relinquish their privilege voluntarily. Amending the UN Charter requires the consent of all permanent members, making structural change improbable.
However, certain incremental steps could mitigate the veto’s harm. Strengthening the ACT Code of Conduct by securing broader P5 buy-in, particularly from the US, could build momentum for voluntary restraint. Empowering the UN General Assembly to act when the UNSC is deadlocked, as proposed in the “Uniting for Peace” resolution back in 1950, offers another avenue for bypassing vetoes in extreme cases.
Public pressure and advocacy from smaller states, civil society and the world’s citizens are critical to driving reform. Highlighting the human cost of UNSC inaction – millions displaced, countless lives lost – can galvanise support for change. The UN’s 80th anniversary presents an opportunity to revisit the San Francisco Conference’s debates and demand a Security Council that serves humanity, not just the interests of a privileged few.
The veto system, once envisioned as a safeguard for global stability, has become a shackle on the UNSC’s ability to fulfil its mandate. Reforming this outdated mechanism is not just a legal or diplomatic challenge, but a moral imperative. The world cannot afford a Security Council that stands idly by as atrocities unfold, constrained by the veto’s iron grip. The time for change is now.
