Just Security by Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Karin Landgren and Paul Romita
The United Nations in Hindsight: Challenging the Power of the Security Council Veto
Authors’ note: Security Council Report is an independent think tank dedicated to supporting a more effective, transparent and accountable U.N. Security Council. A version of this article will appear in Security Council Report’s May Monthly Forecast.
The veto power conferred by the United Nations Charter is, after permanency itself, the most significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. The U.N. would not have been founded without the five permanent members having the power of the veto; indeed, the organization was designed so that all major decisions would require the support, or at least the acquiescence, of the big powers.[1] But from the start, the veto has been a steady source of tension between the permanent members and the wider membership of the U.N. Since the end of the Cold War, veto reform has been an element of many initiatives seeking structural reforms of the Council. These initiatives have come from member states that believe that the Council no longer reflects the ways the global order has changed since 1945. Frequently, member states also take up the perceived “abuse” of the veto in discussions of Council working methods, including during the body’s annual working methods debate.
On Apr. 26, the U.N. General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution A/RES/76/262, which calls for the General Assembly to meet whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. The President of the General Assembly will convene a formal meeting to hold a debate on the vetoed subject within ten working days and, on an exceptional basis, the member or members who have cast a veto will be given precedence in the speakers’ list.
The vote was the culmination of an initiative led by Liechtenstein and a core group of countries.[2] Eighty-three members co-sponsored the resolution from every U.N. regional group, including three permanent members: France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Although there have been veto initiatives in the past, this is the first time a U.N. body has taken action to modify the use of the veto.
Such initiatives have a history, though. In the mid-2000s, the deadlock over Syria led member states to search for ways to make veto use more difficult. In August 2015, France, with the support of Mexico, launched the ‘Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity’. The aim was to have the permanent members – the P5 – voluntarily pledge not to use the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on a large scale. Among the veto-wielding permanent members, so far only France and the United Kingdom have supported this initiative. As of April 2020, 103 member states and two U.N. observers had signed the declaration.
More:
https://www.justsecurity.org/81294/the-united-nations-in-hindsight-challenging-the-power-of-the-security-council-veto/
