UNSC’s veto power: A long-standing obstacle to accountability and reform

Established in 1945 by countries that had been victorious in World War II, the United Nations (UN) was founded with the principle mandate of promoting global peace and security, protecting human rights and upholding international law.

Consisting of five permanent and 10 temporary members, the UN Security Council (UNSC) is the body within the organisation with the most actionable influence and impact. Its decisions are binding and apply to both member and non-member states.

What makes permanent members – the US, the UK, France, Russia and China – privileged is that they have veto power, which allows them to block any resolution, regardless of majority opinion within the Security Council.

“Permanent members have a right of exception that other countries do not enjoy,” according to Richard Falk, Professor of International Law at Princeton University and former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.

Speaking to TRT World, Falk says that awarding veto power exclusively to the UNSC’s five member states is akin to saying “they're not accountable under the UN” and are therefore free to violate international law.

Highlighting the dangers associated with veto power being held by just five members, Falk says, “Because those five countries are no longer representative of the most influential, most powerful countries, it seems to make the UN an illegitimate organisation and so, both in terms of legitimacy and effectiveness, the veto is an unfortunate burden that this mechanism possessed.”

The UN has repeatedly failed to develop concrete solutions to major humanitarian disasters throughout its history and has often faced criticism for its inability to prevent ongoing massacres and large-scale atrocities, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and civil war.

The organisation's response – or lack thereof – to such crises leaves the international community questioning the effectiveness of the organisation and would indicate that a fundamental reform of the structure of the UNSC is crucial.

Israel’s occupation of Palestine

Marking its 56th year as of today, Israel's occupation of Palestine remains one of the UN’s greatest failures. Claiming itself as a key player in the conflict that had begun to simmer in the 1920s, the UN had, in 1947, devised a “Partition Plan for Palestine,” allocating more than 55 percent of Palestinian land to Jews – despite the Arab population constituting two-thirds of the region.

Professor Falk asserts that one of the most devastating blows the Palestinians received from the UN was the diplomatic body’s decision to divide Palestine “without consulting the resident population,” adding that the partition of the country was, in itself, a “violation of the right of self-determination enjoyed by the Palestinian people that were living as the dominant ethnic group in the country.”

“And not only did the UN fail to implement the right of self-determination, but it was unable to implement its own plan, which at least gave the Palestinians a state of their own,” he explains.

On the other hand, the Jews were able to form their own state – albeit at an immense cost to Palestinians; Israel’s formation in 1948 coincided with what is known as the Nakba – a violent and bloody “catastrophe” in which armed Zionist gangs forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and native lands, killing scores in the process and causing what remains one of the biggest refugee crises on the planet.

Twenty years later is when the first major rebellion occurred in what is known as the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War of 1967. Emerging victorious, “Israel then occupied half of the land designated for Palestine in the Partition Plan, expanding its territory to 78 percent, in violation of the prohibition on acquiring land through military force,” says Berdal Aral, Professor of International Relations at Istanbul Medeniyet University.

“During the 1967 wars, Israel occupied all of Palestine's territories. It took the UNSC six months to decide that Israel should withdraw from the 'recently occupied' territories. However, the fate of the previously occupied lands remains overlooked by the Security Council,” Aral adds.

Professor Falk echoes a similar view, saying the UN and international law have failed Palestinian people in a number of ways. Asked about the crimes Palestinians have been subjected to under international law, Falk says, “If I was to list all the crimes that the Palestinian people have endured, it would take many hours.”

“The most serious crimes are the imposition of an apartheid regime on the control of the Palestinian people, the establishment of a network of settlements in occupied Palestine, the excessive use of force, the attempted annexation of Jerusalem, the incursions and massive use of advanced weaponry against the civilian population in Gaza,” says Falk, adding that, “the blockade of Gaza since 2007, torture in the prison system, and a generalised failure to allow normal civil activities to occur during this prolonged period of occupation,” have also been criminal offenses.

Is the US veto emboldening Israeli aggression?

The US president at the time of Israel’s foundation was Harry Truman, who became the first world leader to officially recognise the state – and did so just 11 minutes after its creation. As Israel’s biggest and staunchest ally since, the US has consistently used its veto power at the UNSC to shield Israel from accountability, having vetoed 53 resolutions critical of Israel or condemning its violence against Palestinians since 1972, UN data reveals.

“It’s concerning that a lot of the times, actions of the UNSC are driven by imperialistic motives rather than the protection of human rights. Human rights violations are selectively addressed based on the countries’ friendliness towards the permanent members,” Aral tells TRT World.

"Imperial powers, especially the US, have repeatedly used their new doctrines to eliminate regimes they do not consider friendly in order to serve their own interests,” Aral adds.

The Nakba may refer to the tragic events of 1948, but the catastrophe is ongoing. Since its violent foundation, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians through systematic massacres. In fact, Israel kills and forcibly evicts Palestinians on a near-daily basis – yet the international community remains a passive observer, essentially condoning Israel’s crimes through its complacency.

Although statistics illustrate the tragic reality of the atrocities committed by Israel through cold numbers, it is worth noting that behind each of those figures, there is a real human face with its own unique story. At least 12 Palestinians, including four children, were killed in the latest Israeli raid on Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank – more numbers to add to the tally and more humans with hopes and dreams whose lives have been brutally stolen from them.

Furthermore, with the number of Palestinian refugees worldwide having reached at least 6.4 million, they constitute the second-largest refugee population in the world after Syrians. As millions of exiled Palestinians are prevented from returning to their homeland, Israel continues to occupy over 85 percent of historical Palestine, controlling and oppressing the Palestinians that remain.

“The UN has claimed to develop the notion of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), but has not dared to apply it where it's most applicable: to the vulnerable and abused people living under occupation or in refugee camps,” Falk tells TRT World.

In accordance with its name, the “United Nations” should involve a collective effort of nations coming together and striving to implement the organisation’s charter of maintaining peace and security, upholding international law and protecting human rights and freedoms. In reality, however, the UN’s member nations don’t seem to stand united – and a great imbalance is apparent. Some of these nations wield a disproportionate amount of power, while others struggle, seemingly powerless, as they fight for the right to live. In a world where the fundamental rights of humans have proven not to be universal and on a planet where injustice continues to prevail, the UNSC stands as a symbol of failed promises.

Is the Security Council undermining the UN?

Asked about whether the UN accomplishes its role in upholding peace and maintaining security, Falk says, “The UN is a great disappointment, because it doesn't seem to be fulfilling the values that underlay the formation of this, supposedly a complex organisation dedicated to preserving human rights and peace and security.”

As far as the UNSC goes, given its supranational authority, it is essential that a mechanism be established to prevent the implementation of decisions in conflict with international law. “Without proper oversight mechanisms, the UNSC has now transformed into ‘Leviathan’. Many important decisions – most of which are backed by the US – lack transparency, involve dirty bargaining, and there is no accountable council that is answerable to the General Assembly,” says Aral.

“Another issue is the representation ratio of the UNSC, which is strikingly low. The five permanent members, which initially represented 10 percent of all countries back in 1945, now only account for a mere 2.5 percent. And in a world with 8 billion [people], where 2 billion are Muslims, there is no representation for Muslims within the Council,” he adds.

“What would be the consequence if these five permanent members act in opposition to peace and security?” Aral asks, responding, “That's when the UN’s functional capacity disappears. Hence, what we essentially convey to permanent members is that they are above international law.”

These issues – both the UN’s limitations and the disproportionate power wielded by some of its members – have sparked a growing demand for reform, with those making the demands asking for their fundamental concerns regarding the Council's structure be addressed. “The puzzle is how do you reform the UN without destroying it? And that's a tricky question – trickier than it might seem,” Falk adds.

“The UN is a very important institution, but the illegitimacy of the UNSC undermines the overall image of the UN. This structure, as long as it remains the same, will continue to generate mistrust,” Aral says.

The G-4 (Group of Four) is among the blocs calling for reform of the UNSC. Consisting of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, the G-4 countries support each other's bids for permanent seats on the UNSC.

Arguing that adding more permanent members could lead to further inequalities in decision-making process, the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group – including Türkiye, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and Canada – firmly opposes the G-4's aspirations for the expansion of the UNSC with additional permanent members.

Through the expansion of non-permanent seats, the UfC advocates for a more inclusive and representative Council, allowing a broader range of countries to have a voice in addressing global issues. As Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says, “We believe that when we say ‘the world is bigger than five,’ we become the voice of the common conscience of the entire human race,” and he asks: “Why should not all [195] countries in the world – in a rotational manner – have a permanent seat at the UN Security Council?”

“The UNSC has taken such a form, only serving the interests of its five permanent members holding veto rights, but standing idle to the oppressions in other parts of the world,” says President Erdogan. “A fairer world is possible,” the Turkish president maintains – with a more inclusive and equitable Security Council.