With another two vetoes cast this week in the Security Council – one on a cessation of hostilities in Sudan and one on a Gaza ceasefire – the importance of the “veto initiative” is now “even more profound”, the General Assembly heard today.
In April 2022, the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council” (document A/RES/76/262 ), which has come to be described as the “veto initiative”. Under this plan, the General Assembly shall convene a formal meeting within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent Council members on the situation as to which the veto was cast, provided that the Assembly does not meet in an emergency special session on the same situation.
General Assembly President Philemon Yang (Cameroon) today called the veto initiative “bittersweet” as its very existence underscores that the Council’s divisions are self-incapacitating. “Inaction has often become the norm, not the exception”, damaging the United Nation’s credibility, he said.
Member States must reflect new approaches to “improve our Organization’s effectiveness and credibility” whether through adopting further measures, recommending action or seeking advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice, he stressed. In the case of a deadlock within the 15‑member Council, the Assembly must be ready to act and seize “the full authority vested in us”.
‘No Longer the End of the Conversation’
While speakers expressed outrage at the Security Council’s increasing deadlock in recent years – even in meetings that seek to address or prevent mass atrocities – they also expressed hope that the veto initiative has begun to reshape the relationship between the Council and the Assembly.
“It has strengthened the accountability of the Council to the wider UN membership,” pointed out Liechtenstein’s delegate, on behalf of a group of Member States. “We have seen a significant proportion of the membership make its voice heard,” he added. The veto is no longer the end of the conversation. Each time a veto is cast or threatened, the Assembly can now consider “our options to act”.
Brazil’s representative said that many meetings in the last two years have often served as platforms to amplify accusations. The “systematic dismissal” of the views of most Member States “not only undermines the Council’s delegated authority but also deepens the frustration of the whole membership”. Public frustration with the inaction of the multilateral system has further deepened.
The delegate from Belgium, also speaking on behalf of Luxembourg and the Netherlands, reiterated concerns over the Council’s paralysis in relation to the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine. Moscow has further weakened the Council’s toolbox by vetoing various important matters on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali, Syria and Sudan. Council members have also used the veto power to block a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Responsibility to Maintain International Peace and Security
Speakers reminded the Council of its responsibility to maintain international peace and security – a responsibility that must be taken seriously by all five permanent members of the organ.
“Currently, the Council is unfortunately not living up to this responsibility,” said Finland’s representative, also on behalf of other Nordic countries, namely Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The use of the veto and even the threat of its use is preventing the Council from acting in accordance with its duties from Ukraine to the Middle East. Just days ago, the Russian Federation vetoed a resolution on cessation of hostilities and protection of civilians in Sudan, where the ongoing conflict has already displaced half of the population, and numerous credible reports indicate mass atrocities.
Describing the use of the veto as a “special responsibility”, France’s delegate also recalled the Russian Federation’s vetoing a draft resolution to protect civilians in Sudan. The Council has vetoed 11 resolutions since the start of 2023 – 20 per cent of the twenty‑first century’s recorded cases.
“This very morning, the Security Council has once again failed to uphold its mandate due to the use of veto on a draft resolution that is crucial to saving the lives of millions,” said the delegate from Indonesia. This shows that the right of veto is not only an antiquated privilege; it is a practice with capital consequences.
The abuse of the veto has emboldened Israel in its actions against the Palestinian people with the aggression now engulfing Lebanon, Saudi Arabia’s delegate also said. The veto power must be restricted on matters of genocide, mass atrocities and ethnic cleansing.
Historic Context
Mexico’s representative, recalling his country’s opposition to the veto power during the San Francisco deliberations in 1945, noted that the UN Charter neither mentions the word “veto” nor gives such explicit power to the permanent members. The conflicts in Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine “remind us that the Security Council’s inaction has direct and very real implications”.
Türkiye’s delegate recalled how the Security Council has always drawn its legitimacy from the wider membership. While the ideal situation is for the veto to be abolished, an alternative would be to limit its use to specific circumstances like genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
“The veto is another example of the existing inequity within the Security Council, on top of the lack of fair representation in its permanent and non-permanent members,” said Japan’s speaker. “We need to reform the Council as soon as possible so that it can better effect today’s reality, rather than that of 80 years ago.”
Egypt’s delegate said that without granting the African continent at least two permanent seats, including the right of the veto, the continent will continue to suffer historical injustice. Africa is underrepresented in the category of permanent membership despite the many items pertaining to the continent on the Council’s agenda.
The use of veto, a privilege afforded to five Member States, goes against the concept of sovereign equality of UN Member States, India’s delegate said. “During the last eight decades, all five permanent members of the Council have used the veto to achieve their respective political ends,” he pointed out.
‘Cornerstone of the Entire UN architecture’
The representative of the Russian Federation said despite actions by the United States which discredit the right of the veto – itself the “cornerstone of the entire UN architecture” – its use by permanent members should not be affected by the reform. The unwillingness of certain Council members to hear and take into account the opinions of others on the path to find compromise is what should be criticized, he stressed, not the veto. Member States should therefore consider the need for a “clear division of labour” between the 15‑member organ and the General Assembly so that neither body encroaches on the prerogatives of the other.
Election of Members of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
The General Assembly also by secret ballot elected members to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
It elected Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zambia, from the African States; China, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam, from the Asia-Pacific States; Hungary and Russian Federation, from the Eastern European States; Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay, from the Latin American and Caribbean States; and Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, from the Western European and other States. All were elected for a six‑year term beginning on 7 July 2025.
Three vacancies among the Eastern European States and one vacancy among the Western European and other States remain to be filled.
NEW – Follow real-time meetings coverage on our LIVE blog .
