Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field — The Genocide Report
Washington, DC — 10 June 2025
The United Nations Security Council veto remains one of the most consequential and contested mechanisms in the international system. Designed to secure the participation of major powers, it has increasingly come into tension with the Council’s responsibility to prevent conflict and protect civilian populations. As geopolitical rivalries intensify and mass atrocity risks persist, the use of the veto raises critical questions about the effectiveness of collective security, the enforcement of international law, and the credibility of global governance institutions.
The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II with the explicit aim of preventing future global conflict and mass atrocities. At the center of this mandate is the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security through collective action.
One of the Council’s defining features—the veto—was designed to ensure that the world’s major powers would remain engaged in the system. Over time, however, this same mechanism has increasingly constrained the Council’s ability to act, raising a fundamental question: does the veto safeguard global stability, or does it obstruct it?
The Security Council veto reflects global power realities—but in moments of crisis, it has too often come at the expense of civilian protection and timely international action.”
A Controversial Tool
Veto power is held by the five permanent members of the Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (the P5). Established under Article 27 of the UN Charter, the veto was a foundational compromise: the Allied powers agreed to participate in a global security body, but only if they retained the ability to protect national interests.
That compromise remains the system’s greatest limitation. A single veto can block a resolution regardless of overwhelming support. Even if 14 of the Council’s 15 members vote in favor, one “no” from a permanent member halts action. While the veto does not apply to procedural matters, it governs substantive decisions, including sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and the authorization of force.
In practice, the veto has been used frequently—and often controversially. Russia has cast the most vetoes, followed by the United States, with the United Kingdom, France, and China using it less often. The U.S. and Russia frequently block each other’s initiatives, reflecting broader geopolitical rivalries.
China and Russia have vetoed resolutions addressing Myanmar’s military crackdown and the persecution of the Rohingya population—actions widely described as ethnic cleansing or genocide. Both countries have also blocked measures condemning the Assad regime in Syria or authorizing humanitarian intervention. Meanwhile, the United States has repeatedly used its veto to shield Israel from resolutions calling for ceasefires or expanded humanitarian access during conflicts in Gaza and the West Bank. Each instance underscores the same reality: geopolitical interests often outweigh humanitarian urgency.
The Gaza Ceasefire Veto
On 4 June 2025, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The measure had the support of 14 of the Council’s 15 members and sought to address a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis, including demands for unrestricted aid access.
By that point, the scale of civilian harm had reached critical levels. Tens of thousands had been killed, including large numbers of children, with tens of thousands believed to be buried under rubble. Aid organizations warned of widespread hunger, with the vast majority of the population facing acute food insecurity.
The veto drew sharp criticism from governments and humanitarian groups, many of whom argued it undermined efforts to alleviate civilian suffering. The Palestinian Authority condemned the decision, claiming it emboldened continued military operations despite mounting civilian casualties.
Call for Reform
When the Security Council fails to act, the consequences are immediate and severe. Humanitarian access is delayed or denied, investigations stall, and perpetrators of mass violence operate with greater impunity. Inaction not only prolongs suffering but signals to the world that enforcement of international norms is inconsistent.
Over time, this paralysis has eroded confidence in the UN itself. Critics argue that the threat—or use—of the veto has repeatedly prevented action in cases involving genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
As a result, calls for reform have intensified. Some proposals advocate abolishing or restricting the veto, particularly in situations involving mass atrocities. France and Mexico have supported a voluntary code of conduct in which permanent members would refrain from using the veto in such cases.
Other proposals suggest structural changes, including expanding permanent membership to better reflect contemporary geopolitical realities—potentially including countries such as India, Brazil, or representatives from Africa. Still, meaningful reform remains unlikely in the near term, as any change would require the approval of the very powers that benefit from the current system.
A Double-Edged Sword
The veto remains a paradox. It reflects the realities of global power and has helped maintain the participation of major states in the international system. At the same time, it has too often prevented timely and decisive action in moments of crisis.
Without reform, the Security Council risks continued paralysis in the face of mass atrocities. More critically, the UN risks falling short of its founding mandate to protect future generations from the scourge of war and large-scale human suffering.
Atrocity Prevention Lens
Vetoes that block humanitarian action or accountability measures carry serious risks for civilian populations. Analysts in atrocity prevention consider the repeated use of veto power in crises involving mass violence as a warning signal. Delayed or obstructed UN interventions can exacerbate civilian harm, increase displacement, and allow perpetrators of atrocities to act with impunity. Monitoring global governance structures and advocating for reforms to prevent veto abuse is therefore essential to safeguarding populations at risk.
Legal Framework
UN Charter, Article 27
Establishes the voting rules for Security Council decisions and the veto rights of permanent members.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Governs the protection of civilians during conflict and underpins UN peacekeeping mandates.
Genocide Convention & Rome Statute
Provide the legal basis for international accountability when mass atrocities occur and intersect with Security Council responsibilities.
Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
A global norm emphasizing the duty of states and the international community to prevent mass atrocities, including in situations where vetoes may block action.
Suggested Citation
Kajs, Lara. “The UN Security Council Veto: Power, Paralysis, and the Limits of International Protection.” Dispatches from the Field. The Genocide Report, Washington, DC, 10 June 2025.
Photo Credit
UN Security Council by riacale. Licensed under CC BY NC ND 2.0
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
About the Author
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.