Need to Regulate Veto Power in UNSC | UN Security Council Reform

Introduction

The UNSC Veto Power Reform debate is closely linked to the broader reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which is the principal organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Its five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States enjoy veto power over substantive decisions. However, the Council's composition and decision-making structure largely reflect the geopolitical realities of 1945. Repeated deadlocks over conflicts such as Syria, Ukraine and Gaza have renewed concerns over the ability of the UNSC to discharge its collective-security responsibilities.

I. Need to Regulate the Use of Veto

1. Preventing paralysis of collective security

• The veto can prevent the UNSC from adopting resolutions even when there is broad international concern over an ongoing conflict.
• Example: Disagreements among permanent members over conflicts such as Ukraine and Gaza have highlighted concerns regarding the Council's capacity to take timely collective action.

2. Protecting populations during mass atrocities

• The veto becomes particularly contentious when it blocks action in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes.
• The Franco-Mexican Initiative seeks voluntary and collective restraint by the P5 in such situations so that the Council can respond to mass atrocities. The initiative does not seek immediate amendment of the UN Charter.

3. Strengthening accountability

• A veto can effectively prevent a substantive Security Council decision. Therefore, the exercise of such power should be accompanied by greater political accountability.
• The Liechtenstein Initiative, reflected in UNGA Resolution 76/262 (2022), provides for a General Assembly debate within 10 working days of a veto. This ensures that a veto does not completely end international deliberation on the issue.

4. Making veto a responsibility rather than an unchecked privilege

• France and Mexico have argued that veto power should be viewed as an international responsibility, particularly when mass atrocities are occurring. The objective is to encourage responsible exercise of existing powers without immediately undertaking the difficult process of Charter amendment.

5. Enhancing the credibility of the UN

• Repeated Council paralysis can weaken confidence in multilateral institutions. Regulation of veto use can help ensure that the UNSC remains capable of responding to emerging threats to international peace and security.

II. Existing Initiatives to Regulate the Veto

1. Franco-Mexican Initiative

• Launched in 2015, it calls upon the P5 to voluntarily and collectively refrain from using the veto in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes. Its principal limitation is that it is based on political commitment rather than legally enforceable restrictions.

2. Liechtenstein Initiative

• UNGA Resolution 76/262, adopted in 2022, created a standing mechanism for the General Assembly to meet within 10 working days after a veto is cast. It strengthens transparency and political accountability without removing the veto itself.

3. ACT Code of Conduct

• The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Code of Conduct calls upon all Security Council members not to vote against credible action intended to prevent or halt genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

4. Pact for the Future

• The 2024 Pact for the Future recognised the veto as a key element of Security Council reform and called for intensified efforts to reach agreement on its future, including discussions on limiting its scope and use. It also called for a more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable Council.

III. India's Role in UNSC Reform

G4 Coalition

India works with Brazil, Germany and Japan to advance reform and expansion of the Security Council.

L.69 Group

India also works with the L.69 Group, comprising developing countries from different regions, to push for comprehensive reform through the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process. India has identified UNSC reform and permanent membership in an expanded Council as a major diplomatic priority.

Balancing effectiveness and representation

India's position reflects a broader approach, the Council must become more representative while ensuring that reform does not create another hierarchy between existing and new permanent members.

Challenges in Regulating the Veto

• Formal abolition or amendment of veto provisions would require amendment of the UN Charter, making the cooperation of the very permanent members whose powers would be affected difficult.
• The P5 regard the veto as an instrument for protecting their vital national interests. They may therefore resist restrictions that could undermine their strategic autonomy.
• Determining whether a particular situation constitutes genocide, crimes against humanity or large-scale war crimes can itself become politically contested.
• The Franco-Mexican initiative and ACT Code of Conduct derive much of their strength from political and normative pressure rather than coercive enforcement.
• Adding more permanent members can improve representation, but extending veto powers to additional members could also increase the possibility of deadlock.

Conclusion

The veto reflects the realities of great-power politics, but its unrestricted use can undermine the principle of collective security. Therefore, UNSC reform should not be viewed merely as a choice between retaining and abolishing the veto. A pragmatic approach would combine responsible veto use, post-veto accountability, equitable expansion of the Council and periodic review. Such reforms can help reconcile the realities of global power with the UN's objective of maintaining international peace and security.