Washington, DC., 10 June 2025 —
The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945, in the aftermath of World War II, with a vision: to prevent future global conflicts and atrocities. At its core lies the UN Security Council (UNSC), tasked with maintaining international peace and security. One of the Council’s most defining features, veto power, was introduced to ensure that the major powers, whose cooperation was essential for global stability, would remain committed to the UN. But this power has increasingly become an obstacle to fulfilling this mission. Which leaves the question: Is the UN Security Council’s veto power a check, or is it a shield?
Controversial Tool
Veto power is held by the P5 – China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US – the five permanent members of the Security Council. The veto was a foundational compromise in the creation of the UN, granted in Article 27 of the UN Charter. The Allied powers agreed to the creation of a global body to prevent future conflicts, but only if they retained the ability to protect their national interests. Therein lies the problem. A single veto can block resolutions regardless of majority support within the Council, allowing P5 members to protect allies or pursue geopolitical interests at the expense of human lives. This means that even if 14 out of the 15 Security Council members support a resolution, a single “no” vote from a permanent member can prevent its adoption. While this power does not apply to procedural votes, it does, however, apply to substantive decisions such as sanctions, peacekeeping operations, or the authorization of military force.
Vetoes have been used frequently and controversially throughout the UN’s history. Russia has cast the most vetoes, followed by the US, then the UK, France, and China. The US and Russia frequently block each other’s initiatives. China and Russia blocked responses to the military junta’s violent suppression of democracy in Myanmar and its persecution of the Rohingya minority, actions widely described as ethnic cleansing or even genocide. Russia and China also vetoed numerous resolutions condemning the Assad regime in Syria or authorizing humanitarian intervention. The US has frequently used its veto to shield Israel from resolutions or authorize ceasefires or humanitarian interventions, even when civilian casualties mount during conflicts in Gaza and the West Bank. Each veto in these cases has a profound human cost.
US Veto Resolution for Permanent Gaza Ceasefire
More recently, on 4 June 2025, the US exercised its veto power to block a resolution calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution, supported by 14 of the 15 Security Council members, aimed to address the escalating humanitarian crisis and demanded unrestricted access for humanitarian aid to the region. At least 55,000 people have been killed in Israel’s war in Gaza – more than 17,400 are children. The UN and other non-government organizations estimate that there are at least 10,000 victims underneath the rubble, and that number is likely more than 100,000.
The US veto has drawn widespread condemnation from various countries and organizations, and comes as 93 percent of the population faces acute malnutrition, and 1 in 5 faces severe food insecurity and starvation; the vast majority are children. Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid prevented food and supplies from entering Gaza for more than four months, and it is still blocking humanitarian access. The Palestinian Authority criticized the veto, stating that it emboldens Israel to continue its crimes against innocent civilians in Palestine.
Call for Reform
When the Council cannot act, atrocities are prolonged or worsened. Humanitarian access is denied, investigations are stalled, and perpetrators of mass violence operate with impunity. The failure to intervene effectively emboldens regimes and non-state actors to continue abuses, confident that the global community is either unwilling or unable to stop them.
Furthermore, inaction erodes global trust in the United Nations itself. Critics argue that the use or threat of the veto power often paralyzes the Security Council, preventing action in the face of mass atrocities, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As a result, many governments, civil society groups, and UN officials have called for reforming the veto system.
Some argue that the veto should be abolished or limited, especially in cases involving mass atrocities or violations of international law. France and Mexico have championed a code of conduct where P5 members voluntarily agree not to use their veto in cases of mass atrocities. Some have proposed empowering the UN General Assembly to override a veto with a supermajority vote in urgent humanitarian situations.
Others propose expanding the number of permanent members to a more representative Security Council, with a reduced or modified veto mechanism, that could better reflect today’s geopolitical realities, for example, by including India, Brazil, or African nations. Despite decades of discussion, reform has proven elusive, largely because any change to the veto system would require the consent of the powers that possess it.
Double-Edged Sword
Veto power remains a double-edged sword. On one hand, it reflects the political realities of global power and helps secure the participation of major nations in the international system. It was intended to preserve peace among the world’s most powerful nations, but in practice, it has too often prevented timely and decisive action in the face of atrocities. Reform may be politically challenging, but without it, the Council’s credibility – and more importantly, human lives – will continue to hang in the balance. As long as the veto remains unchecked, the UN risks failing its foundational promises: to save future generations from the scourge of war and mass violence.
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, an NGO nonprofit organization in Washington, DC. She is the author of Assad’s Syria, and Stories from Yemen: A Diary from the Field, available in e-book, paperback, and hardcover at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Apple Books, and independent bookstores worldwide. Distributed by Ingram. Ms. Kajs frequently speaks about atrocity crimes, forced displacement, state terrorism, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Follow and connect with Lara Kajs on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and Bluesky.