Shanzeh Mirza
Edited by Casey McKee, Sahith Mochalra, Roohie Sheikh and Jia Lin
“For six months now, the Security Council has been unable to adopt a draft resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. All attempts were repeatedly thwarted by the opposition of the United States, which, in cold blood, used its veto in this Chamber on four occasions” [1]. Vasily Nebenzia, the member representing the Russian Federation, delivered these words with biting precision. Since October 7, 2023, member countries like Algeria and communities worldwide have continued to call for a ceasefire in Gaza and the return of all hostages. Despite pleas and protests, at least one permanent member of the UN Security Council has vetoed every draft regarding the “situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question” as of October 2024 [2]. While the content in these drafts continues to raise questions about what warrants rejection, an equally important question arises: How does the structure of these five members, known as the P5, affect the legitimacy and justice of global governance and democracy?
In discussing the P5 of the United Nations Security Council, it is first important to understand what the framework of the council is. The United Nations is an entity that consists of five “organs” that underlie the United Nations’s goal of maintaining international peace and security. One of these five organs is the United Nations Security Council that–when issues of a threat to peace and/or legitimized aggression are brought forth by a member of the council–the Security Council “calls upon parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement” such as through imposing sanctions [3]. The only parties that can formally bring forward issues, officially draft and vote on resolutions, are members of the council [4]. In the United Nations Security Council, there are ten members that have two year non-consecutive terms, and five permanent members. The five permanent members, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, and China; can veto a bill, with one veto enough to reject the bill entirely [5]. These countries hold an elevated status, despite often being in conflict with one another. This standing originates from the Moscow Convention discussions in 1949, where the United States, Soviet Union, China, and Britain signed the Four Power Declaration that established the United Nations. The fourth point of this declaration called for the creation of a “general international organization” to promote “international peace and security.” [6]. France later was added as a buffer between the competing interests of the Soviet Union and Germany [7].
It is intriguing to examine to which extent these five countries have used their abilities to veto draft resolutions. According to a data compilation by the Council of Foreign Relations, Russia has used their veto ability the most, a total of 158 times, while France comparatively has only vetoed eighteen times. The United States as of 2024, has vetoed ninety-two times total, China with twenty-one times, and the United Kingdom at thirty-two total vetoes. These numbers show that if a draft doesn’t align with a country’s vision or lacks their input, it is swiftly vetoed, thus nullifying any potential for compromise and action. This highlights a potent power imbalance between permanent members and general members. Take the 2018 security council meeting S/PV.8274 as an example. The meeting discussed the need to respect humanitarian and international laws as well as the protection of Palestinian peoples under Israeli occupation, as described by the member representing Kuwait, the country that drafted the resolution. However, the United States did not agree with the resolution. Nikki Haley, the United States representative, stated that everyone’s edits were not taken into account when submitting the draft, and that the draft represents “a grossly one-sided view of what has taken place in Gaza in recent weeks…regardless of how others choose to vote, the United States will oppose the draft resolution and [the United States] will veto it if [they] must” [8]. There are no further resolutions pertaining to the issue brought up by Kuwait excluding a ceasefire resolution for the Islamic month of Ramadan [9], demonstrating that if a permanent member vetoes a bill misaligned with their interests or perspectives, the likelihood that the bill will reemerge in another form while keeping its core ideas, is slim.
Further examples of a P5 member using their veto against drafts that go against their personal interests rather than the collective interest of international states is seen with Russia’s second most recent veto is on the draft resolution of non-proliferation surrounding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, centered on–just like the resolution concerning a ceasefire in Gaza– caution and dislike of the ‘Western agenda.’ Mr. Nebanzia writes that [the international community is] witnessing an unprecedented policy from a coalition of Western countries led by the United States to strangle Pyongyang…” [10]. It is important to recognize that regardless of who is vetoing resolutions, whether that be Russia vetoing a resolution that called for Russian forces to withdraw out of Ukraine or the United States who has vetoed 46 resolutions critical or unfavorable towards Israel, a close ally of the P5 member, discourse and amended drafts can be only so beneficial if and only if members–especially permanent members–can see eye to eye [11] [12]. What imbalances the scale of permanent and temporary members further, is the threat of a “hidden veto” where a permanent member can threaten to veto a draft, its use which can result in a “draft resolution not to be formally tabled because of the threat of the veto by one or more permanent members” [13]. It is rather compelling to note how easily a P5 member can shoot down a draft resolution, and any resolution. As of October 8th, 2024, the most recent draft resolution that was vetoed was about the nuclear proliferation in space was vetoed by the Russian Federation. In the released recorded meeting by the United Nations, Russian representative Nebenzia, questioned the intentions of Japan and the United States (who had posed the draft) stating that such aims of the resolution had already been achieved and enforced for the past 57 years in the Outer Space Treaty. Nebanzia held that the Russian Federation had proposed multiple amendments, none of which were accepted. The current resolution, as it stood, was too politicized and was not representative of what the international community needed [14]. The statement that the resolution doesn't reflect the needs of the international community, combined with the use of the veto, shows that a P5 member has the power to act on what they believe is best for the international community, even if other members disagree.
The United Nations Security Council, tasked to fight humanitarian violation concerns, such as genocide and altercations between countries, has historically fallen short of expectations. Such as amongst the council’s P5, Russia who vetoed thirteen times, and China who vetoed seven times plus one abstention on “resolutions meant to address crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against the Syrian people” since October 2011 [15]. For an organization based on the principles of justice and fighting aggression, the United Nations is critiqued as inherently undemocratic [16]. However this system (and its shortcomings) is intentional, reminiscent of the imperial powers and colonial control of the past. Anjali Dayal and Caroline Dunton write that the security council “was explicitly built to be unfair, giving the victors of the World War II an outsized role in international peace and security, marginalizing whole regions and continents…and it was explicitly structured to be easily deadlocked, with any of the P5 able to unilaterally grind [the former colonies’] work to a halt” [17].
Though typically interpreted negatively, some argue that the use of the veto can be beneficial. Ivan Krastev writes that while the use of the veto can demonstrate hard power—such as military force or sanctions—it can also weaken a country’s soft power, which is its ability to appeal to and persuade others, especially in the age of connected global communities. When the United States rejected 13 resolutions related to Israel, public opinion that the United States is a broker of the Middle East weakened permanently. Similarly when the Russian Federation vetoed a draft to create a board that would investigate the “Malaysian airplane in Ukraine made many believe that the military units of the rebels in Donetsk had something to do with the accident.” [18]. The lack of vetoes used in situations outside the P5 vetoing members’ scope reiterates the personal interest driven nature of the action. Though implemented as a means to serve justice and enforce peace in the global governance system, in practice however, there are few meaningful ways to block a P5 member from abusing their authority.
This presses further a concern: how can members, who often have competing interests with the resolutions presented, legitimize their votes when they hold the power to veto resolutions critiquing themselves or their allies? Historically, there have been cases where members of the council have tried to restrict vetoing abilities–such as when France, with the support of Mexico, pushed forward the “Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity” which would allow permanent members to voluntarily decide to not veto resolutions when issues of genocide, humanitarian crises, and war crimes are occurring on a large scale; however, given the voluntary nature and the recency of the declaration–this effort was only put in motion in 2015–thus far only France and the United Kingdom have not used their veto since, while the remaining members have [19]. However, efforts to democratize still persist. As of 2022, a landmark ruling, established by the United Nations General Assembly requires a formal debate to be held within 10 working days in response to any use of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council. The veto would be discussed among the 193-member Assembly to understand the rationale of the veto usage [20]. Members hoped that this would increase transparency and accountability in veto usage. As of October 2024, sixteen vetoes have been used, including two just a month after the rule was introduced. This raises the question of whether the power of the P5, along with their economic influence, goes beyond the limits the United Nations–a global organization that struggles with funding and enforcing penalties–can enforce [21] [22].
[1] United Nations Security Council 9584th Meeting, 14 (2024), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/pro/n24/079/04/pdf/n2407904.pdf.
[2] UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables, United Nations | Dag Hammarskjöld Library, https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick.
[3] What is the Security Council?, United Nations Security Council, https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/about_test1#:~:text=The%20Security%20Council%20is%20one,Each%20Member%20has%20one%20vote.
[4] France and United Arab Emirates: draft resolution, (2023), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_2023_638.pdf.
[5] Rhea Basarkar et al., Backgrounder: The UN Security Council, Council on Foreign Relations (2024), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council.
[6] The Tehran Conference, 1943, Milestones: 1937–1945, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf.
[7] see [5]
[8] United Nations Security Council 8274th Meeting 17 (2018), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/pro/n18/167/10/pdf/n1816710.pdf.
[9] UN Documents for Middle East, including the Palestinian Question, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question/ .
[10] United Nations Security Council 9591st Meeting 11 (2024), https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/pro/n24/085/07/pdf/n2408507.pdf
[11] Peter Granitz & Joe Hernandez, The U.N. Approves a Resolution Demanding That Russia End the Invasion of Ukraine, NPR, Mar. 2, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1083872077/u-n-set-to-hold-vote-that-would-demand-russia-end-war-in-ukraine.
[12] Shakeeb Asrar & Mohammed Hussein, How the US Has Used Its Veto Power at the UN in Support of Israel, Al Jazeera, Oct. 26, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/how-the-us-has-used-its-veto-power-at-the-un-in-support-of-israel.
[13] The use and abuse of the veto power, https://estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/10.0010/20240423150000000/Te8sK5R9MYxI/gJQ0x0nCTCF9_en.pdf.
[14] United Nations Security Council 9616th Meeting, 12 (2024),
[15] UN Security Council and the Responsibility to Protect, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, https://www.globalr2p.org/calling-for-a-unsc-code-of-conduct/.
[16] With Violent Conflicts Increasing, Speakers Say Security Council Reforms Crucial to Ensure International Peace, Stability, as General Assembly Begins Debate, United Nations | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases (2023), https://press.un.org/en/2023/ga12562.doc.htm.
[17] Anjali Dayal & Caroline Dunton, The U.N. Security Council Was Designed for Deadlock — Can It Change?, (2023), https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/03/un-security-council-was-designed-deadlock-can-it-change.
[18] Ivan Krastev, UN Security Council: Veto Option Does More Good Than Bad, (2015), https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/un-security-council-veto-option-does-more-good-than-bad/.
[19] In Hindsight: Challenging the Power of the Veto, May 2022 Monthly Forecast (2022), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2022-05/in-hindsight-challenging-the-power-of-the-veto.php.
[20] General Assembly Adopts Landmark Resolution Aimed at Holding Five Permanent Security Council Members Accountable for Use of Veto, United Nations | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases (2022), https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12417.doc.htm.
[21] UN Security Council Meetings & Outcomes Tables, United Nations | Dag Hammarskjöld Library, https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick.
[22] UN warns of massive funding shortfall as global crises mount, Al Jazeera, Dec. 11, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/11/un-appeals-for-46-billion-to-fund-aid-in-2024.
Comments