Washington, DC — 10 June 2025
The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945, in the aftermath of World War II, with a clear purpose: to prevent future global conflict and mass atrocities. At the center of that mission is the UN Security Council (UNSC), charged with maintaining international peace and security.
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. Yet over time, that same power has increasingly hindered the Council’s ability to act, raising a fundamental question: does the veto safeguard global stability, or does it obstruct it?
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 their 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 is enough to halt 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 human toll was staggering. 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 that 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 promise: to protect future generations from the scourge of war and large-scale human suffering.
Photo Credit: UN Security Council by riacale. Licensed under CC BY NC ND 2.0
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report (TGR). She has conducted extensive fieldwork in conflict and displacement settings, including Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her work focuses on humanitarian crises, international law, and the prevention of mass atrocities.