z5056631, Helen Lee

Removing Veto Power Can Improve Effectiveness of UNSC

Organisation
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the premier body of the United Nations
(UN) which is tasked with maintaining international peace and security. The council is
compromised of 15 member states of the UN. 5 permanent members (US, Russia, UK, France
and China) and 10 rotational members which are determined by geographic regions. The 5
permanent members of the UNSC have veto power which when exercised, prevents the
adoption of a proposal regardless of if it has received the required votes.

Figure 1: Composition of the UNSC

Mission
Whilst the UNSC has no explicit mission statement, under the UN Charter, it has primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. (UN.org., 2016)
Recommendation
The UNSC should remove the veto powers of the 5 permanent members such that whilst they
remain a permanent member, their vote will not quash a proposed resolution.
Rationale
Removing veto power can improve the UNSCs ability to achieve its mission in 3 ways:
First, removing the veto powers would allow the UNSC to intervene in more situations as any
sanctions, peacekeeping forces or armed forces can only be authorised by a UNSC resolution.
Between 1946 and 2009, 222 resolutions were vetoed. Of these, 188 had at least 9 votes, the
minimum required to pass a resolution (Globalpolicy.org, n.d.). Thus as can be seen,

z5056631, Helen Lee

individual nations own interests have resulted in resolutions being quashed. Many of which
would have contributed to the UNSCs effectiveness at maintaining world order. More
recently the conflict in Syria, a situation that is disrupting the peace that the UNSC works to
maintain was addressed in a number of resolutions by the UNSC. Four were vetoed, of these,
one proposed the implementation of economic and diplomatic sanctions (Globalpolicy.org,
n.d.). This demonstrates that if veto powers were removed, the UNSC would be able to
impose those sanction which could work towards discouraging conflict and restoring peace.

Figure 2: Resolutions Vetoed by Which Nations (Borger, 2015)

Second, removing the veto power asserts the legitimacy and by extension, the authority of the
UNSC. The UNSC is the premier organisation when it comes to intervention in conflicts and
restoration of peace. As such, it should be an effective body that can be relied on to deliver.
When it does not meet these standards, it causes states to avoid or bypass the UNSC and may
result in illegitimate interventions which further stir tensions as these could be seen as
invasion. Thus if the UNSC cannot be an effective body, states will seek alternate paths of
dispute resolution which may not be effecting without disturbing peace. Following the
paralysis over Syria and forestalled action over the annexation of Crimea, Samantha Power,
the US ambassador to the UNSC stated that the US and other countries had increasingly
been going elsewhere to have atrocities investigated (Borger, 2015). By removing the veto
power, some of the UNSCs paralysis could be prevented and the UNSC would then reaffirm
its credibility and status as the go-to international arbitrator.
Lastly, by removing the veto power, it will further enforce the balance of power in the UNSC
and allow a better representation of a course of action that is desired by the majority of the

z5056631, Helen Lee

UNSC members. While the UN and UNSC work towards creating world order and
maintaining international peace and security, nations will have their own national interests.
These interests can often clash with proposals which are often subjugated when a permanent
member decides that the proposal is not in their interests. This may occur even though the
proposal would aim to restore peace and security. In the case of the annexation of Crimea, by
Russia, on 15 Mar 14, a resolution reaffirming the councils commitment to Ukraines
sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity was put to vote and vetoed by
Russia (Wikipedia, 2014). The resolution, which aimed to resolve what was seen by some as
an act of military intervention or even invasion, received 13 votes, with China abstaining and
Russia vetoing. Therefore, in this example, an effort to restore security was prevented by
Russia due to their military interests in the Black Sea. Thus removing the veto powers of the
permanent members allows for the acceptance and rejection of proposals to be a better
representation of the outcome desired by a majority of the UNSC.
Risks
Currently, the 5 permanent members are nuclear weapons states and keep nuclear
proliferation at a minimum by vetoing proposals by nations to start nuclear programs. The
permanent 5 members are the only recognised nuclear weapon states under the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) although India, Pakistan and North Korea (all
of which are non-parties to the NPT) have conducted nuclear tests. As such the permanent 5
members act as a deterrent for nations that would be interested in undertaking a nuclear
weapons program with the consent of the UNSC as all 5 members are party to the NPT and
thus would veto any such proposals in order to limit the number of nuclear weapons and the
number of nations that have access to them. However, only a handful of states are non-parties
to the NPT therefore on one hand, while the veto power would guarantee that any such
proposals are quashed, even without veto power, it is highly unlikely that the UNSC would
vote to allow a nation to undertake a nuclear program. Thus the risk of increased nuclear
proliferation is quite low.
Veto power also ensures that the UNSC focusses on dealing with solvable problems that have
either a broad, high level impact or are causing narrow, concentrated impacts but in an area of
regional instability. It discourages proposals that are inconsequential or not immediately
threatening international peace and security. For example, it discourages the US from
proposing sanctions on China for human rights abuses and China does not seek to clear the
recognition of Taiwan (The University of Sydney, 2011). This is because controversial and
one sided proposals are seen as surefire to being vetoed. Thus without veto power, the UNSC
could find itself dealing with increasing amounts of proposals, drawing attention and time
away from more substantial threats to international peace and security.
Conclusion
By removing the veto power of permanent member states, the UNSC will decrease the
amount of forestalling on issues where a members self-interests are in conflict and thus be
able to act in more situations to restore peace and security which is its core mission.
Word Count (excluding references below): 1066

z5056631, Helen Lee

References
Un.org. (2016). United Nations Security Council. [online] Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/sc/ [Accessed 18 May 2016].
Globalpolicy.org. (n.d.). Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes. [online] Available at:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/40069-subjects-of-un-security-councilvetoes.html [Accessed 18 May 2016].
Borger, J. (2015). Russian Vetoes Are Putting UN Security Council's Legitimacy At Risk,
Says US. The Guardian. [online] Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-councillegitimacy-at-risk-says-us [Accessed 18 May 2016].
Wikipedia. (2014). Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. [online] Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#United_N
ations_resolutions [Accessed 18 May 2016].
The University of Sydney, (2011). The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and
Its Reform. [online] Sydney: Major Issues and Theology Foundation Ltd, pp.3-4, 24-26.
Available at: https://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf
[Accessed 18 May 2016].