As the central institution of the United Nations, the Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Among its most influential – and controversial – tools for achieving this goal is the veto right, granted exclusively to the five permanent members (the “P5”): the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The veto allows each of these nations to unilaterally block the adoption of any resolution, regardless of the level of international support. The veto falls within the international regulations of the post-World War II period, approved to create a new international order and to prevent future conflicts. The goal of global security led to the negotiations of the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference and those of the 1945 Yalta Conference.
When the main countries and delegates gathered again at the 1945 San Francisco Conference to define the UN structure, the veto was enshrined as a key element of the United Nations Charter. Article 27 of the UN Charter establishes the Security Council’s voting procedures, requiring that substantive decisions need the affirmative vote of nine out of fifteen members, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This clause effectively gives each permanent member the ability to veto resolutions. Although the provision was designed to ensure P5 leadership in peacekeeping, in recent years it has produced considerable geopolitical deadlock. The veto has often been exercised based on the strategic interests of the P5 rather than in the name of broader international consensus. The Security Council veto has carried significant weight in modern humanitarian crises. Russia and China, for example, have blocked resolutions aimed at addressing human rights violations in Syria, while the United States has prevented the adoption of resolutions condemning Israeli settlement expansion. More recently, there has been a flurry of vetoes in the context of the current Israel-Gaza war. The frequent use of the veto in similar circumstances has raised serious concerns about its impact on international humanitarian law.