Reforming the UN Veto Power; Towards Moral Accountability and Democratic Global Governance.

Reforming the UN Veto Power; Towards Moral Accountability and Democratic Global Governance.

Introduction

The veto power of the five permanent members (P5) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France — is one of the most powerful instruments in international relations. While originally designed to secure the participation of the great powers after World War II, the veto has increasingly been perceived as an instrument of paralysis and injustice, especially in conflicts such as Palestine/Gaza, Syria, and other humanitarian crises where global consensus is thwarted by a single dissenting vote.

Legal Basis of the Veto Power

The legal foundation for the veto lies in Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, which states:

“Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters (other than procedural) shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.”

(United Nations Charter, 1945)

This means that any one of the five permanent members can block the adoption of substantive resolutions, regardless of the number of states in favor. Procedural matters, however, are exempt from veto.

Ethical and Practical Concerns

While legally entrenched, the veto power lacks moral legitimacy in today’s multipolar, interdependent world. It undermines the principle of sovereign equality of states enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter and perpetuates a power structure frozen in 1945. Its repeated use to block action in situations of mass atrocity — including the protection of civilians in Palestine, Gaza, and Syria — has severely eroded the credibility of the United Nations as a guarantor of peace and justice.

The veto, in its current form, amounts to a “killer power” that can neutralize the collective will of the international community. As a result, millions suffer while the Security Council remains deadlocked.

Existing Reform Proposals

Several reform ideas have been advanced over the years, including:

• Voluntary Restraint on Veto Use in Mass Atrocities: France and Mexico have spearheaded an initiative (2013) calling on P5 members to refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

• Expansion of the Security Council: Many states advocate for increasing permanent and non-permanent seats to better reflect contemporary realities.

• General Assembly Override Mechanisms: Some scholars propose that a veto could be overridden by a supermajority in the General Assembly or by the remaining permanent members (“counter-veto” proposals).

Yet, none of these reforms has been implemented because Charter amendments under Article 108 also require ratification by all five permanent members — the very actors whose powers would be curtailed.

A Proposed Policy Framework: Counter-Veto and Ethical Parameters

To restore the credibility of the United Nations and make the Security Council more democratic and accountable, a new policy framework should be considered:

1. Counter-Veto Mechanism:

• If a P5 member exercises a veto, the other four permanent members together, or a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, should have the right to override that veto.

• This would ensure that no single state can paralyze collective action when the overwhelming majority supports it.

2. Ethical Thresholds for Veto Use:

• Vetoes should be legally barred or suspended in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998).

• A formal code of conduct for veto use should be adopted and monitored.

3. Transparency and Accountability:

• Every veto should be accompanied by a written, publicly available explanation specifying the legal and moral grounds for its use.

• The General Assembly should hold an automatic debate following any veto, under the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism (GA Resolution 377 A, 1950).

4. Gradual Power-Sharing:

• Non-permanent members and underrepresented regions should be granted enhanced procedural rights to ensure inclusiveness.

Conclusion

The veto power was a political compromise of 1945, not a timeless principle of international law. In the 21st century, when humanity faces unprecedented global challenges — from mass atrocities to climate crises — no single state should be able to block collective action. Establishing a counter-veto mechanism and ethical parameters for veto use would transform the UNSC from a tool of great-power privilege into an instrument of genuine collective security and justice.

References

• United Nations Charter, Articles 2, 27, and 108 (1945).

• General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V) “Uniting for Peace” (1950).

• France and Mexico, “Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity Crimes” (2013).

• International Criminal Court, Rome Statute (1998).

Syed Ali Raza Naqvi Bukhari

Unity of Peace, Economic Reform, and Global Unity

Founder & Chairman of Tehreek Istehkam Pakistan, and the author of “Law of God” and “Social Democratic System.” Advocates for truth, social justice, and reform in all sectors of society.