Delegates at the General Assembly today reiterated calls to reform the Security Council in making it more responsive to its primary role of maintaining international peace and security, as they debated use of the veto.
The 193-member organ convened in line with resolution 76/262, adopted in April 2022, which mandates it to hold a session within 10 working days of a veto being cast in the Security Council.
Opening the meeting, Assembly President Khalilur Rahman (Bangladesh) said that, with 21 such meetings convened as part of the veto initiative, the “mechanism has become an established expression of transparency, accountability and collective responsibility within our organization”.
He commended the Security Council for its timely special reports to the General Assembly and its permanent members’ participation in these debates, noting that humanity is best served when both organs “operate in balance, each fulfilling its distinct yet complementary responsibilities under the Charter”.
Noting that the Council’s effectiveness directly impacts people living in conflict, insecurity and humanitarian suffering, he said when it does not act definitively, the cost is borne “first and foremost by those most affected by violence and instability”.
“It is my hope that the Council will find the consensus needed to act decisively in the service of peace — and that the veto initiative will be needed less often”, he said, urging related debates to not become repetitive exercises, but help keep dialogue alive.
“Let us reaffirm that no veto should bring an end to dialogue and diplomacy and that the principles of the Charter must continue to guide our collective search for peace”, he said.
In the ensuing debate, delegates highlighted the present and potential pitfalls of a veto-laden Security Council with its implications in regions and territories far from the location where the decision is taken.
Mexico’s representative, speaking also for France, said “the veto cannot become an obstacle for collective action” when civilians face grave violations. He urged permanent Council members to voluntarily refrain from using it in cases of mass atrocities, including genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes, stressing: “When human lives are at stake, our responsibility, our shared responsibility, must be to act.”
Warning that “the cost of inaction is measured in lost human lives”, Luxembourg’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Benelux countries — Belgium, the Netherlands and her country — deplored the Council’s use to block action against widespread atrocities. “The veto is neither a carte blanche for impunity, nor an automatic shield against accountability, nor a license to disregard the UN’s collective interests”, she said.
“It is States like ours that bear the cost of a system that no longer applies its rules evenly”, said the representative of Brunei Darussalam, noting that small countries like hers rely on the UN Charter as their “principal security guarantee”. As such, when the veto prevents the Council from acting, it undermines their confidence.
The representative of Ukraine recalled the Russian Federation’s repeated abuse of its veto power in shielding its aggression against his country, particularly through obstructed Council action on Crimea in 2014, the downing of flight MH17 in 2015 and Moscow’s full-scale invasion in 2022. “No State should be a judge in its own case”, he stressed, calling for consistent implementation of Article 27 (3) of the Charter, which requires parties to a dispute to abstain from voting in certain Council decisions. “The veto was never meant to grant impunity for aggression”, he added.
Speaking also for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, Norway’s representative, citing failures to protect civilians in Sudan and Gaza and address the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine, stressed that the General Assembly must play a greater role when the Council is deadlocked. She also criticized vetoes blocking sanctions-monitoring panels and warned against the phenomenon’s influence over the selection of the next Secretary-General.
While some speakers proposed increasing the number of veto-wielding countries on the 15-nation organ, others categorically rejected a modification or expansion of the Council’s present permanent membership configuration.
For South Africa’s representative, while his country opposes, in principle, the use of the veto, that power — pending its abolition — must be extended to new permanent members in an enlarged Security Council. “Anything less will merely perpetuate existing inequities and institutionalize unequal treatment among permanent members”, he said.
“Let's be clear: The problems cannot be the solution”, said Pakistan’s representative, saying that he opposed adding permanent Security Council seats. More vetoes would deepen inequalities and risk further paralysis. Calling for the veto to be abolished or “at least severely restricted”, he proposed expanding elected membership and adjusting voting thresholds to counterbalance permanent members’ power.
The Russian Federation’s delegate rejected claims that the Council is paralysed by the veto, stressing that blocking a resolution can sometimes prevent further escalation. She defended Moscow’s and Beijing’s joint veto on a draft resolution concerning navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that it preserved space for diplomacy between Iran and the United States. “It’s time to stop imagining the veto as some kind of unfortunate shortcoming of the UN system”, she stressed.
Some Member States, however, offered suggestions to alternatively manage the veto situation.
Cautioning that a decline in vetoed draft resolutions does not necessarily indicate “evidence of a more productive Security Council”, the representative of Liechtenstein, speaking for a group of Member States, urged Council members to present their proposed texts and be accountable to the Assembly when the 15-member organ fails to uphold its mandate both as part of its annual and special reports.
Bahrain’s delegate, speaking for the Gulf Cooperation Council, highlighted the “unlawful, unjustified Iranian attacks against our countries”. He noted that the failure to adopt the draft resolution on the security of maritime corridors and navigational freedom, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, underscores the importance of fostering constructive dialogue and bridging differences among States. Continued dialogue represents an important step in strengthening the UN’s responsiveness in maintaining international peace and security, he said.
Noting that “the veto must never be used for violations of the very Charter that the Security Council is entrusted to uphold”, Latvia’s delegate, speaking also for Estonia and Lithuania, said explaining or justifying its use cannot alone prevent its misuse or address its consequences. Their countries, therefore, support providing informal summaries of General Assembly debates on the veto’s use, including concrete recommendations and proposals for further action.