All news articlesNMC RESEARCH
CategoryGeneralWar
RegionsCNIRRUWORLD
ContinentsAsia
DossiersWar in Iran
Archive photograph, for illustration. The United Nations headquarters in New York.

UN members divided over veto powers at annual Assembly debate

Archive photograph, for illustration. The United Nations headquarters in New York. · 2007 · Abir Anwar · CC BY 2.0
Loading statistics…

Countries put forward competing plans for the Security Council veto at the UN General Assembly’s annual debate. None changed the Council’s powers.

Review information is loading.

The UN General Assembly debated the Security Council veto on 26 October, but the countries calling for reform disagreed over what should replace the current rules. Some wanted the veto abolished or curtailed; others said new permanent members should have it too. The session adopted no reform.

This was the Assembly’s fifth annual debate on the veto, not a meeting called in response to a particular vote. Under a separate rule adopted in 2022, the Assembly must meet within 10 working days after a Security Council veto. Assembly President Khalilur Rahman said 21 meetings had been held under that rule, most recently on 1 October. The arguments followed a wider debate on Security Council reform four days earlier.

Mexico, speaking for itself and France, urged permanent members to *voluntarily* refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities, including genocide and crimes against humanity. The proposal would not require a change to the UN Charter. The UK said it had joined the initiative last month; Singapore described itself as the second permanent Council member to do so. The Nordic countries called for a stronger General Assembly role when the Council is deadlocked.

South Africa took a different position on membership: although it opposes the veto in principle, it said any new permanent members should receive the same power while the veto exists. Pakistan opposed adding permanent seats or extending veto rights, instead favouring more elected members and abolition or severe restriction of the veto. Russia rejected the argument that a veto necessarily paralyses the Council, saying that blocking a resolution can sometimes prevent escalation.

Changing the Council’s membership or formally altering its veto rules would require a Charter amendment. That means a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent Council members. At the close of the session, the Assembly president said remaining speakers would be heard on a date yet to be announced.

Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.

About this discussion and AI questions

Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.

Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.

Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.

Loading comments…