Criticism of Veto Power in UNSC The veto power has been criticized for its undemocratic nature. A single country can prevent a majority of the Security Council from taking any action. For example, the United States routinely casts lone vetoes of resolutions criticizing Israel. The permanent members also veto resolutions that criticize their own actions.
In , Russia vetoed a resolution condemning its annexation of Crimea. Amnesty International claimed that the five permanent members had used their veto to “promote their political self interest or geopolitical interest above the interest of protecting civilians.” Some critics see the fact that veto power exclusive to the permanent five as being anachronistic, unjust, or counterproductive. Peter Nadin writes that “The veto is an anachronism. In the twenty-first century, the veto has come to be almost universally seen as a disproportionate power and an impediment to credible international action to crises.” The “enormous influence of the veto power” has been cited as a cause of the UN’s ineffectiveness in preventing and responding to genocide, violence, and human rights violations.
Various countries outside the P5, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and African Union have proposed limitations on the veto power. Reform of the veto power is often included in proposals for reforming the Security Council. It has been argued that with the adoption of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution by the General Assembly, and given the interpretations of the Assembly’s powers that became customary international law as a result, that the Security Council “power of veto” problem could be surmounted. By adopting A/RES/ A, on November , over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its “primary responsibility” for maintaining peace.
Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded “final responsibility”—rather than “secondary responsibility”— for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes; thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action, should two-thirds of the Assembly subsequently agree that action is necessary. (