Should the UN Security Council's veto be abolished

The brief in 6 cards

1. Context1 / 6
   • Debate over UN Security Council (UNSC) reform and the veto has resurfaced during the 81st session of the UN General Assembly.
   • France has pushed for voluntary restraint on using the veto, especially in cases of mass atrocities, rather than calling for the veto's abolition.
   • France and Mexico have promoted this specific initiative since 2015.
   • This is a live policy debate with competing views among UN member states, including the five permanent members themselves. This article presents the different positions without endorsing any one of them.
2. Key highlights2 / 6

   Current structure: The UNSC has 15 members: five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US), known as the P5, and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

   How the veto works: Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, decisions on substantive matters need nine affirmative votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. A negative vote by any P5 member can block a substantive resolution.

   The case for reform: Critics argue the veto reflects the global power balance of 1945, not today's world, and note that no African country, among other major regions, holds a permanent seat.

   Abolition versus restraint: Actually abolishing the veto would require amending the UN Charter itself, needing agreement from the very P5 members whose special position it would remove. France's approach instead asks for voluntary restraint, particularly in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

   Growing support, not consensus: The France–Mexico initiative has gained support from over 100 UN member states over the past decade, according to French government statements. Two P5 members, France and the UK, have themselves signed on.

   Not every P5 member agrees: Restraint under this initiative is voluntary. It does not bind China, Russia or the United States unless they choose to join it, and none of the P5 has agreed to a Charter amendment abolishing the veto itself.

3. Key concepts3 / 6
   1. The veto and Article 27 of the UN Charter

   • Article 27(3) of the UN Charter requires that Security Council decisions on non-procedural (substantive) matters be made by an affirmative vote of nine of the fifteen members, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members.
   • In practice, this means any one of the five permanent members can block a resolution by voting against it. This is what is commonly called the "veto".
   • A permanent member can also choose to abstain rather than vote against a resolution. An abstention does not count as a veto and allows the resolution to pass if enough other members vote in favour.
   • Article 27(3) also states that a party to a dispute must abstain from voting on that specific matter, though enforcement of this rule has been debated.

   News connection: The veto's legal basis is this single Charter provision, which is why changing it formally requires a Charter amendment.

   2. Amending the UN Charter

   • Under Article 108 of the Charter, an amendment needs a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly, and ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council.
   • This means the P5 effectively hold a veto over changes to their own veto power.
   • Analogy: it is like asking a small group of shareholders, who alone can block any change to company rules, to vote away their own special voting rights.

   News connection: This is precisely why full abolition of the veto is seen as far harder to achieve than voluntary restraint, which needs no Charter change at all.

   3. Voluntary restraint versus a binding rule

   • Voluntary restraint, as proposed by France and Mexico, asks P5 members to commit politically to not using the veto in defined situations, without changing the Charter's text.
   • Compliance depends on political commitment and reputational pressure, not any legal enforcement mechanism.
   • A binding rule would instead be written into the Charter itself, legally removing the veto in specified circumstances, and would need the Article 108 amendment process described above.
   • Distinction: A voluntary code can be adopted quickly by willing states, but a member can still walk away from it. A binding rule is far harder to adopt, but cannot be so easily set aside once in force.

   News connection: France's initiative works entirely through the first, easier route, precisely because the second route is currently unrealistic.

   4. Collective security and the UN's founding purpose

   • Collective security is the principle that a threat to peace anywhere is treated as a concern for the whole international community, not just the State directly affected.
   • The UN Charter's Preamble and Article 1 commit member states to maintain international peace and security through collective action.
   • Critics of the veto argue that its use, especially in mass-atrocity situations, can directly undermine this founding purpose, since a single permanent member's vote can prevent the Council from acting at all.
   • Defenders of the veto argue it exists precisely to prevent decisions that any major power would strongly oppose, since without it, powerful states might simply refuse to work within the UN system altogether.

   News connection: The France–Mexico initiative tries to reconcile these two views by preserving the veto in general while asking for restraint in the most serious cases.

4. Way forward4 / 6

   Pursue incremental reform: Work toward practical steps such as greater regional representation and transparent explanation of each veto used, rather than an all-or-nothing Charter change.

   Encourage voluntary restraint: Continue building support for restraint in mass-atrocity situations, since this path does not require unanimous P5 agreement to move forward.

   Build consensus gradually: Treat incremental measures as a step toward the longer-term goal of broader Charter reform, rather than a substitute for it.

5. Note5 / 6

   Voices on both sides

   Those favouring restraint or reform:

   • France has said the veto is "not a privilege but a special responsibility". It has stated it will not use its own veto in mass-atrocity situations.
   • The United States has said it is committed to refraining from the veto except in "rare, extraordinary circumstances," according to a UN General Assembly record.
   • Supporters argue that a mandatory General Assembly debate whenever any veto is cast, established by a 2022 UN resolution, is itself a meaningful step toward accountability.
   • Many developing countries, and regional blocs such as the African Union, argue the current permanent membership does not reflect today's geopolitical and demographic realities.

   Concerns and counter-arguments:

   • Some P5 members have not joined the France–Mexico initiative, reflecting continuing disagreement over whether even voluntary restraint is desirable.
   • Defenders of the existing veto structure argue it maintains stability by ensuring no major power is forced into a Council decision it strongly opposes, which could otherwise push that power to act entirely outside the UN system.
   • Sceptics of voluntary codes note that political commitments, unlike Charter provisions, are not enforceable and can be set aside.
   • Some critics argue that reform proposals require difficult trade-offs between principle and pragmatism: strict adherence to consensus-based Charter amendment can mean reform never happens.

   Where this leaves the debate: There is no single "right answer" here. Reasonable positions exist on both sides, from full abolition, to voluntary restraint, to preserving the veto entirely, and this remains an active area of international negotiation rather than a settled matter of fact.

6. Note6 / 6

   Quick reference: key terms and dates

   UN Charter, 1945: The founding treaty that created the UN and the Security Council's structure, including the veto.

   Article 27: Sets out the voting rules of the Security Council, including the veto for permanent members on substantive matters.

   Article 108: Sets out the process to amend the Charter, requiring agreement from all P5 members.

   2013–2015: France first proposed regulating the veto; the joint France–Mexico political declaration followed in 2015.

   UN General Assembly Resolution 76/262 (2022): Established that the General Assembly will automatically convene to debate any veto cast in the Security Council.

   81st UN General Assembly (2026): The current session in which this debate has resurfaced.

Swipe or use ← → to move between cards.