FORUM : UNSC

ISSUE : On Reconsidering the Veto in the United Nations Security Council

STUDENT OFFICER : Cleo Zarina Reyes
POSITION : CHAIR

VETO POWER

The United Nations Security Council Right to Veto, commonly referred to as

Veto Power, is the ability of the ve permanent members (P5) of the United
Nations Security Council (United States of America, United Kingdom, China,
Russia, and France) to prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution
presented by a nation in the Security Council or admission of a new UN member
state. The Veto is used as a negative vote by a member (or members) of the
P5 and automatically blocks and fails the `substantive' resolution. Veto power
does not apply to procedural matters.

However, it is important to note that

abstention of any member of the P5 does not necessarily inhibit the adoption
of any resolution.
Substantive pertains to involvement with the topic being discussed, such as
clauses, amendments, and draft resolutions. A country may choose to vote for,
against or abstain on substantial matters.

Procedural matters, on the other

hand, denote the way a committee is being run and abstentions are prohibited.

VOTING STRUCTURE OF UNSC

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members, 5 of which

are permanent and 10 of which are non-permanent countries elected to serve
2-year terms. In order for substantive material to be passed, the Article 27 of
United Nations Charter states that :
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by
an armative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by

an armative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the
permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and
under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from
voting.
Hence, in order for substantive resolution to be adopted by the Security Council,
more than nine votes out of the fteen countries are needed, without any of the
P5 members exercising their right to veto.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION : ORIGIN

OF VETO POWER

After the tragedies caused by World War I, the League of Nations was established in 1919 to prevent the repetition of such historical catastrophes. Albeit
that League of Nations proved to have successfully resolved several global issues
such as territorial disputes, and founding of international commissions, the lack
of critical participation from several major powers proved to be the weakness
of the League of Nations. United States, for example, never joined the League.
Germany, on the other hand, was initially not permitted to join the League after
being seen as the aggressor in the First World War.
After World War II, the four major allied countries, USA, USSR, UK and
China, rallied the foundation of United Nations.

Following extensive discus-

sion in Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, the veto system in Security Council was
established and fell under the Article 27 of the United Nations Charter.

SHOULD WE RECONSIDER THE VETO POWER

IN SECURITY COUNCIL?

The right to veto has often been seen as the most undemocratic aspect in United
Nations.

More importantly, it is a privilege, reserved only for these ve su-

perpowers, that undermines the importance of equality of countries in United

Nations. Despite the fact that each country has one vote, the veto power of P5
overrules the vote of the other 14 countries. The main problems, essentially, in
giving these ve countries the right to veto are: (a) the right to veto eectively
acts as ticket to protect themselves and navigate international relations to their
respective best interests, and (b) global progress is impaired and issues remain
unresolved as a result of (a).
In the negotiations leading up to the foundation of the UN, many countries
were against the veto power. However, the P5 pushed forward their right to veto
using the principle that without the veto power wielded to P5, there will be no
United Nations. Advisor to the US delegation in the 1945 conference, Francis
O. Wilcox revealed, At San Francisco, the issue was made crystal clear by the
leaders of the Big Five: it was either the Charter with the veto or no Charter

at all (Wilcox). Many also view the UNSC veto system in order to prevent the
UN from taking any future action, such as expulsion, directly against its ve
founding members. This is a precaution set upon by the P5 given the expulsion
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the League of Nations in 1939,
following its attack on Finland in the same year.
All of the ve countries have exercised their right to veto in one point or
another. The country's use of veto often mirrors the interests of the country.
Figure 1 shows the number of resolutions that has failed because of the utilization of the veto power of one of the ve permanent members.

4.1

CHINA

Upon the creation of United Nations in 1945, the Republic of China (ROC)
was a member of the Security Council until 1971 despite the establishment of
the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. ROC only exercised their veto
power once, using it to block the admission of Mongolia in United Nations in
1955. At the time, ROC recognized Mongolia as a part of their territory and
not an independent state. After PRC joined the Security Council in 1971, its
rst veto was against the admission of Bangladesh to United Nations because
PRC recognized Bangladesh as province of Pakistan and not a state by itself.
PRC also vetoed against ceasere observers in Guatemala (1997), and against
the observer ship status of Republic of Macedonia (1999) since Guatemala and
Macedonia recognized ROC as the legitimate government of China. China often supported Russia in vetoing for purposes that benetted Russia, such as
sanctions against the Syrian government and Zimbabwe. With regards to issues
that do not directly aect it, China preferred to abstain, a behavior that has
been called out by United Nations. These show the evident partiality of PRC
against countries and unethical usage of veto to protect its interests.

4.2

FRANCE

France often exercised their veto power in accordance with it allies, United
Kingdom and United States. The only resolution France vetoes by itself was in

1976 on the question of the independence of Comoros since Mayotte, a French

territory, was a part of Comoros.

France, however, almost vetoed Resolution

1441, which oered Iraq, who was under Saddam Hussein, a nal opportunity
to comply with its disarmament obligations or it will face serious consequences.
France expressed that any material breach should not automatically lead to war
but another resolution to deal with these breaches.

Ultimately, France sided

with US and UK, voting for this resolution.

4.3

UNITED KINGDOM

United Kingdom usually used its veto power to support its allies, United States
and France.

UK had, however, unilaterally vetoed against seven resolutions

concerning Rhodesia. Rhodesia was an unrecognized state that was a colony of

UK. UK, along with France, also vetoed a resolution resolving the situation in
Suez Canal in 1956. The Suez Crisis, also known as Tripartite Aggression, was
the invasion of Gaza Strip and Egypt by Israel, UK, and France. After incessant
pressure from US, USSR, and UN, the three countries withdrew their forces.

4.4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America has been deemed as the world's dominant military,
economic, and political power. More importantly, it has been the viewed as the
most signicant member of the United Nations. The deviating ideologies of US
and UN have been more evident in the previous years in lieu of the current global
issues. From 1986 to 2012, US have vetoed almost the same resolutions as it
had from 1946 to 1983. This exhibits the growing disagreement between US and
the UN countries in general. Almost 80% of the resolutions vetoed by US are
regarding the issues in the Middle East. US have repeatedly vetoed resolutions
sanctioning its ally Israel, and resolutions supporting Iraq and Palestine. This
clearly shows how US utilizes its veto power to protect its and its allies interests
regardless of the global consensus, particularly in the Arab region.

4.5

RUSSIA

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a member of the Security Council
from 1945 to 1991, until it was passed onto Russian Federation. During its time
in the Security Council, USSR casted its veto 109 times out of 128 vetoes used
by the council by 1973. Upon the creation of Security Council, USSR vetoed
numerous applications for United Nations membership. Some of these applications were Austria, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Greece, and Republic of
Korea.

When Russian Federation took over the P5 seat, there was a drastic

drop in the frequency Russia used its veto power.

Presently, Russia has ve-

toed any sanctions against the Syrian government, protecting its prominent ally
irrespective of the current issues revolving around Syria.
As a consequence of the utilization and exploitation of the veto power of the
P5 for their best interests and for the protection of their allies, various critical

issues, which need immediate action, are left unresolved: the situations in Syria,
Israel, and Palestine continue to exacerbate. In the past, the indecisiveness of
Security Council members had lead to the UN Peacekeeper's failure to intervene
with the Rwandan Genocide, Somalian Civil War, and Yugoslav Wars. In order
to prevent the past from repeating itself, reconsideration of the veto power is
imperative.
To access the resolutions vetoed by the ve permanent members of the

United Nations Security Council, click on the link below by the UN: < http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick>

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

In order to combat the current problems presented by the existing voting structure of the Security Council, three approaches have been considered and remain
to be possible solutions: an agreement between the P5 to unanimously reduce
the use of veto power, to increase the number of countries who are permanent
members and thereby increase the number of countries who can use the veto
power, and to remove the right to veto completely.

5.1

Reduce the use of veto power

France has launched an initiative to convince the other four members of P5 to

refrain from using their right to veto in substantive matters concerning mass
atrocities. Mass atrocities, according to Physicians for Humans Right, are dened as human rights violations directed against a population, including war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. France believes that the use of
veto power inhibits or delays the immediate required action needed to address
this issue, wherein thousands of lives are dying concurrently.

This is in light

of the present situation in Syria, wherein United Nations is crippled because of

Russia and China. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in an interview
on October 2nd 2015, We hope there will be more commitments to ensure that
these situations, like in Syria, where there are mass atrocities and the UN Security Council is paralyzed by a veto, disappear. In the case of Syria, China
and Russia have used their right to veto three times to sanctions against the
Syrian President Bashar Al-Ssad and another resolution that would have given
the International Criminal Court a chance to investigate the Syrian conict and
prosecute the Syrian government for possible crimes against humanity. United
States, on the other hand, has continuously defended Israel and left the IsraelPalestinian conict frozen as well. Currently, 75 non-permanent countries have
backed France's proposal. United States and United Kingdom remain reserved
regarding the topic.

Russia, on the other hand, has explicitly expressed its

disagreement, with the Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stating, We are
against it. We think this is not a workable proposition. In order for this solution to be feasible, incentives might be given to P5 members to reduce their
usage of veto power. Alternatively, if the other four members have agreed or
supported France's proposal, Russia might be pressured into doing so. Finally,

reducing the use of veto power when addressing mass atrocities can be the rst
step to the decrease of the utilization of veto power in other pressing issues such
as nuclear or cyber crimes.

5.2

Increase the number of P5 members

There have been numerous attempts and discussions to add more permanent
members in the Security Council to ensure that regions are fairly represented.
Among the candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan; these four countries compromise the G4. The G4 countries are the four countries supporting
each other's bids for permanent seats on the Security Council. Their bids are
continuously opposed by the Uniting for Consensus movement. The Uniting for
Consensus movement is formed by 13 non-permanent member states, which are
against the expansion of the permanent seats in Security Council. While the
P5 members appear to be welcoming of the idea, each member has not publicly taken the initiative to push forward this concept. In addition, each P5 has
expressed disagreement with one of the G4 countries.

5.3

Complete Eradication of Right to Veto

The main objective upon the creation of United Nations is to unite all nations.
Yet the privilege given to the ve permanent members of Security Council shakes
the entire foundation of United Nations. How can there be unity without equality? The right to veto essentially places the P5 in a pedestal, higher than other
countries, and whose opinions matter more. While others may argue that the
P5, as the founding members, have the right for this privilege, it is important to
note that these countries are not the superpowers they are today. Eradicating
the right to vote may therefore be the only way to achieve equality and to create
the platform for all countries that United Nations is meant to be, wherein each
country actually has one vote. However, convincing the P5 to give up their veto
power will prove to be very dicult, if not impossible.

France's proposal to

reduce the utilization of veto power, nevertheless, gives hope and may even be
the rst step to completely eradicate of the right to veto.