The veto of the United Nations Security Council, explained

This report is part of ongoing coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war. Visit our dedicated page for more on this topic.

In one passionate address to members of the United Nations Security Council earlier this month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy challenged diplomats to intervene in the Russian invasion of the country, citing alleged atrocities committed by Russian troops throughout the war so far. Despite the attack by many individual council members in the scenes depicted by Zelensky, the international body has refused to act, bound, as it is, by Russia's ability to veto any resolutions passed.

Is it time, as Zelenskyy argues, to reform this unilateral force?

“This is something that comes up again and again in UN working group meetings,” he says Fiona Creed, associate professor of instruction at Northeastern, who previously served as executive director of the United Nations Association of Greater Boston. “The veto itself is one of the most frequently raised issues in almost anything to do with how the Security Council works.”

The Russian Federation is one of five nations that hold such veto power in the Security Council—a group known as the “permanent five” or “P5” that also includes China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Permanent members use the veto to “defend their national interests, to uphold a doctrine of their foreign policy or, in some cases, to advance a single issue of particular importance to a state,” UN Security Council Report.

Since February 16, 1946, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) cast its first veto, it has been used almost 300 times by members of the permanent five, more often than Russia (120 times) and the US (82 times), according to data from the Dag Hammarskjöld library.

In his address to UN members, Zelensky he argued that Moscow is “turning the right of veto in the UN Security Council into the right to kill”. Other prominent voices, including those in his opinion pages enough major News Organisationsthey also argued that the P5 countries' ability to unilaterally block UN resolutions has rendered the international organization irrelevant and called for reforms.

News@Northeastern discussed the complicated issue with Creed. Her comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Let's start with the basics: How does the UN veto work?

In practice, the UN Security Council has formal and informal discussions, which lead to “resolutions” or “decisions”—these formal decrees are like laws passed by the US Congress, with one key difference in the Security Council: All votes are not equal.

In the Security Council, the five permanent members have veto power over substantive decisions. According to the UN charter, only the permanent five hold the veto. When a P5 member votes against a resolution, it effectively ends it, even though the other 14 members may have voted yes. That a P5 member can block a resolution means they have absolutely nothing to fear from any Security Council proposal they find unacceptable. He just votes and the matter is over. The veto issue in the Security Council has been a point of contention for many years.

Is the veto used a lot?

Most resolutions end up being passed by majority or even consensus. When considered in context, the veto isn't used that often, we just tend to hear it when it happens.

Overall, Russia was the most frequent veto user, followed by the US and the UK

China's use has increased significantly since 2011, with the conflict in Syria the most responsible. in 2014, [when Russia annexed the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea], the Russian Federation vetoed resolutions concerning itself and Ukraine. And in 2017, Russia vetoed five, all against resolutions aimed at resolving the war in Syria and the use of chemical weapons. At that particular time, Russia claimed that its motivation for using the veto was that the UN was interfering in the national affairs of a member state.

Is there anything the UN can do to isolate Russia in the meantime while still having that veto power?

The options are limited. The invasion of Ukraine has raised the question of whether Russia can be removed from the Security Council. At this point, the answer is no, because Russia will veto any resolution proposing such action. However, this may happen anyway and member states could continue to call for removal. If a majority of Security Council members voted to remove Russia, even with Russia vetoing it, the action itself would be symbolic and send a strong message to the international community and to Russia itself.