80th Anniversary of the United Nations - 80 Years of a Wrongful Power?

By Ava Carroll

In 1945, fifty representatives of different nation states gathered at the United Nations Conference on International Organisation in San Francisco, California, from the 25th of April to the 26th of June. World War II was nearing an end, with countries in ruin, craving peace. For two months, these representatives drafted and then signed the UN charter, creating a new international organisation. The United Nations was created to prevent the possibility of future world wars, working to maintain international peace and security for and between nations. The United Nations aimed to continue the legacy of the League of Nations, which disbanded in 1946 as they were unable to achieve the goals of the founders. The United Nations, however, has served as a centre where countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these various ends of peace, security, and upholding both human rights and international law for the past eight decades. Now celebrating its 80th anniversary in 2025, the United Nations proves its indispensability in the current efforts to face rising challenges, in social development, financing for global development, environmental conservation, and global tensions. However, the UN has faced severe criticism and backlash in the media recently, specifically in terms of its veto power. The global community is calling for acknowledgement and consideration of this power’s potential, and evidence of its ability to limit the UN’s genuine ability to take action on pressing issues.

So, we ask, what is this veto power?

The veto power is held by the permanent members of the UN Security Council, China, France, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The Security Council consists of fifteen members, five being permanent and 10 being rotating (every two years). The non-permanent members, however, don’t hold the veto power. This veto power allows the permanent members to rescind any resolutions which the ‘national interests’ of their country contradicts, resulting in the original decision being unapproved, unable to continue its motion.

The UN originally introduced this power to ensure the unanimity for military action, protecting peace and security globally, in the midst of the second World War. This assured Security Council members that their governments would not be overruled, critical for the sovereign state’s participation in the new organisation, as the leaders aimed to avoid the failures of the League of Nations, which lacked effective enforcement mechanisms. It ensured that the UN wouldn’t be able to force actions against other major powers, preventing further conflict as the world emerged from the ruins of WWII. This cemented the power dominance of the permanent members, who wanted to ensure their power to control the actions of the council concerning war and peace. So, the initial motivation for the creation of this power was to ensure equality between nations’ interests, promoting an image of fairness between the permanent members to avoid any dissension between parties, a respectable sentiment and concern as they attempted to repair a shattered world. However, though this veto was implemented to strengthen the Security Council’s responsibility of maintaining peace, it has resulted in significant amounts of geopolitical deadlock, whilst undermining the democratic principles and credibility of the Security Council over the last eighty years.

Instead of giving the UN the opportunity to take action in creating peace and maintaining security, it often prevents this motion, forcing the UN to observe the event externally. This most recent use of the veto power was demonstrated by the US, being the sole rejector to the draft resolution which called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. With fourteen votes in favour, and only one against, it would be logical to assume that such an overwhelming majority rules, and that the draft resolution would be passed. However, due to the one veto of a permanent member, just one vote, the entire initiative was blocked from motion. The resolution reaffirmed the previous call for the, “immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by the Hamas and other groups,” by the Council, whilst highlighting the “catastrophic humanitarian situation” which has devastated the economy and resulted in malnourishment, with one million Palestinians in Gaza not having enough food to feed their families, even with the food and cash support from organisations such as the UN World Food Programme, and the USA’s humanitarian support. The lack of motion by the UN on the US’ behalf thus results in this geopolitical landlock, leaving the UN to observe the war in Gaza externally, blocking their motion for a direct intervention.

The veto power, used over three hundred times in the past eighty years, has been criticised, significantly over the past decade, as undermining the democratic and humanitarian ideals of which the United Nations was first created. The ability of one nation to dismiss what democracy has voted as fair and right creates a significant power imbalance, and subverts the egalitarian principles of which the United Nations was constructed upon. The fact that one vote from a more powerful five countries, in a council of fifteen, which supposedly champions impartiality and justice, does pose questions for the reconsideration of the UN’s credibility in a time of significant international distress and tension, where action is vital to the resolution of several wars, genocides, and political instability in countries such as, and far from limited to, Palestine, Sudan, and Myanmar. Additionally, many cases in which the veto power is executed is in the case of mass atrocity crimes, meaning that when the veto is enforced, humanitarian aid is unable to be provided to people and countries which are in desperate need of support. In these terms, the veto power is thus not providing the intervention promised in the Charter of the United Nation.

Though this veto power is seen as an ‘innovation’ and ‘cornerstone of the UN’ by the members of the permanent Security Council, there have been different proposals set forward and concerns raised within the UN to the Council itself. France, despite being a permanent member, has advocated for the voluntary restraint of the veto since the mid-2000s, with French Foreign Minister (2012-2016) Laurent Fabius commenting on France’s determination to challenge this veto, and establish a new standard for permanent Council members, which would accompany the responsibility to protect, with the “responsibility not to veto.” This proposal would apply in the cases of mass atrocities, thus allowing for the reclamation of the principles of democracy and humanitarian support which the UN was founded upon. Additionally, there has been the proposition that two or more permanent members should enact their veto power for the resolution to be rejected, reinforcing these democratic ideals again, and, though not completely perfect, would add further credibility to the UN and its ‘sovereign equality.’

There is no way of knowing if the UN will resolve the veto powers, though France is pressing this issue, however, there are several options for the UN to take if they do wish to rectify the misuse of the veto power. The council could pursue the proposed routes by France and the general public; limiting veto power, or delegating its finality across more votes. However, it is clear that reform and reinspection of this power is necessary to keep the UN in line with the demands of the modern day. Ultimately, the UN needs to unanimously work together to forge a solution which will not only benefit the running of the Security Council, but also allow for the protection of sovereign nations, and countless lives, across the globe, without bias, and upholding the principles on which the United Nations was established.