Discover what is veto power in UN and how it shapes global politics. This simple guide explains who has it, its history, and its real-world impact.

Do not index

The UN Security Council’s veto power is one of the most significant and controversial features of international diplomacy. It’s a special voting rule that gives just five countries the ability to single-handedly block any major resolution, even if every other member is on board.

Think of it this way: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States each hold a special key. This key can instantly stop any major UN action in its tracks, making their agreement essential for the world body to act on critical security issues.

Understanding the UN Security Council Veto Power

To really get a feel for the veto, picture the UN Security Council as the world’s top emergency response team. When a crisis erupts, the team has to decide on a plan—maybe imposing sanctions, deploying peacekeepers, or condemning an act of aggression. For any plan to move forward, it needs at least nine "yes" votes from the council's fifteen members.

But here’s the crucial twist. Those nine "yes" votes must include affirmative votes from all five permanent members, a group known as the P5. If even one of these five nations votes "no," the resolution is dead on arrival. That single "no" vote is the veto. It's essentially an emergency brake that any of the world's most powerful nations can pull to stop the UN from taking action.

The Scope of Veto Power

It’s important to know that this power isn’t absolute. The veto only applies to what the UN calls "substantive" resolutions. These are the big-ticket items—decisions on sanctions, military interventions, and anything directly related to maintaining international peace and security.

It doesn't apply to "procedural" matters, like setting the agenda for a meeting or forming a committee to investigate an issue. This distinction is designed to keep the P5 from bogging down the Council's daily work. Still, the veto's influence on major world events is massive, a reality that anyone involved in Model United Nations quickly learns to navigate.

At its core, the veto power ensures that any major enforcement action taken by the UN has the backing, or at least the silent agreement, of the world's leading military powers.

The legal foundation for the veto is baked right into Article 27 of the UN Charter. It states that all substantive decisions of the Security Council require nine affirmative votes, including the "concurring votes" of the five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. This language is what grants each of them the power to say no.

To quickly summarize these core ideas, here's a simple breakdown of how the veto works.

UN Veto Power At a Glance

Aspect	Description
Who Holds Veto Power?	The five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council.
What Can Be Vetoed?	Substantive resolutions (e.g., sanctions, military action).
What Cannot Be Vetoed?	Procedural resolutions (e.g., setting an agenda).
Legal Basis	Article 27 of the United Nations Charter.

This table lays out the fundamentals, but the real story of the veto lies in how it has been used—and debated—since the UN's founding.

Why the Veto Was Created in the First Place

The veto power wasn't some last-minute addition to the UN Charter. It was a deliberate, calculated feature, born directly from the failures of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, and the devastation of World War II. To really get a handle on what veto power is in the UN today, you have to go back to a time when the world was desperate to avoid another global catastrophe.

The League of Nations, which came out of World War I, was a noble idea that ultimately failed because it had no teeth. A huge part of its problem was that it couldn't force major countries to participate. The United States, for example, never even joined, which kneecapped the organization right from the start.

When leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin started sketching out a new global body, the ghost of the League's failure loomed large. They knew one thing for sure: for the United Nations to have any chance of succeeding, it absolutely had to have the world's biggest military and political players on board.

The Great Power Unanimity Principle

The core logic behind the veto is something called the "great power unanimity" principle. This was a brutally pragmatic acknowledgment of how the world actually works: you simply can't enforce global peace and security if the most powerful nations are at each other's throats.

It's a bit like forming a team of superheroes. To get anything done, the heavy hitters—the ones who can stop armies single-handedly—all need to be on the same page. If you try to force a decision they disagree on, you risk the team turning on itself, which is a far bigger disaster than the original problem.

The veto was essentially a guarantee to the major Allied powers of WWII that the new United Nations could never take military action against them or their vital interests without their explicit permission.

This was the price of admission. Without that guarantee, countries like the United States and the Soviet Union, with their polar-opposite ideologies, probably would have walked away from the whole project. They weren't about to sign up for an organization that could outvote them on the fundamental issues of war and peace.

Forging a Compromise at Yalta

The nitty-gritty details were ironed out in tense negotiations at conferences like Dumbarton Oaks and, most famously, the Yalta Conference in 1945. There, the "Big Three"—Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin—laid the foundation for the new Security Council as the UN's primary enforcer.

The trade-off they landed on was straightforward:

Permanent Membership: The world's major powers (who would become the P5) would get permanent seats on the Council.

Veto Right: These permanent members would hold a special power to single-handedly block any major resolution.

This wasn't an easy pill for everyone to swallow. Many smaller nations were furious, arguing it created a tiered system of international law where some countries were clearly more "equal" than others. They rightly saw it as undemocratic and a violation of the idea that all sovereign nations are equal.

In the end, though, the alternative was considered much worse: a United Nations without the USA or the USSR, which would have been just as ineffective as the League of Nations. The veto was the difficult, messy compromise required to get the world's giants to the table. It knowingly built the potential for gridlock right into the UN's DNA, but it was seen as the only way to make the organization a reality in a deeply fractured world.

How the Veto Works in a Real UN Vote

The theory behind the veto is one thing, but watching it play out in the UN Security Council shows you its raw power. When those fifteen members gather, the process for passing a resolution is incredibly specific. A single "no"—or even just the threat of one—can derail everything.

First, you have to know the difference between substantive and procedural resolutions. Procedural stuff is the boring but necessary business of running a meeting, like setting the agenda or creating a new subcommittee. These just need a simple majority vote, and the veto doesn't apply. It's saved for the big-ticket items.

Substantive resolutions are where the real drama is. These are the legally binding decisions that deal with threats to international peace and security—think imposing sanctions, deploying peacekeepers, or condemning an invasion. For one of these resolutions to pass, it has to clear two very different hurdles.

The Two Hurdles for a Resolution

To get adopted by the Security Council, any substantive resolution has to achieve two things:

The Nine-Vote Threshold: It needs at least nine "yes" votes from the fifteen members.

The P5 Concurrence: It can't get a single "no" vote from any of the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US).

I like to think of it as a two-key lock system. Getting nine votes is like turning the first key. But if you can't get all five of the P5 members to at least not say "no," the second lock won't turn, and the door stays shut.

A resolution can have the enthusiastic support of 14 out of 15 members, but if that one dissenting vote comes from a permanent member, the resolution fails completely. This is the veto in its most direct form.

Let's run through a quick example to make this crystal clear.

A Hypothetical Peacekeeping Vote

Imagine a civil war is spiraling out of control in a small country, creating a massive humanitarian crisis. A draft resolution is introduced to authorize an armed peacekeeping mission to protect civilians. This is a classic substantive issue, so the veto is definitely in play.

The resolution is well-crafted and has a lot of support. The vote is called, and the final tally is:

Affirmative Votes: 13

Abstentions: 1 (from a non-permanent member)

Negative Vote: 1 (from a permanent member)

Even with that overwhelming support, the resolution is vetoed. It's dead on arrival. The P5 member who cast the "no" vote might have a strategic ally in the conflict, valuable economic interests at stake, or a philosophical objection to intervening in another nation's affairs. Whatever the reason, their one vote overrules the other fourteen nations in the room.

The Power of the Hidden Veto

The vetoes you see are only half the story. Just as powerful are the ones you don't see. This is often called the "hidden veto" or "pocket veto."

Long before a resolution ever hits the floor for a formal vote, there are weeks of intense, behind-the-scenes negotiations. If a P5 member signals privately that they will "absolutely veto" a certain proposal, the countries sponsoring it will usually either drop it entirely or water it down significantly to avoid a public defeat.

The mere threat is often enough to kill an idea before it's ever formally written down. This shows how the veto's power reaches far beyond the Security Council chamber, dictating what is even considered possible for the UN. For MUN delegates, grasping this dynamic is essential when learning how to write resolutions that can actually navigate these political minefields and pass.

A History of Veto Use by P5 Nations

The story of the veto isn't just about a rule in a charter; it's a story of shifting global power. While the right to veto is static, how each of the five permanent members has used it tells us everything about the changing tides of geopolitics. Looking at these patterns shows how this ultimate diplomatic weapon has been wielded to protect national interests, project influence, and shape international history for over 75 years.

The history of the veto really breaks down into distinct eras, each dominated by a different power’s strategic goals. In the early days, the ideological battle of the Cold War set the stage perfectly for its first, and most frequent, user.

The Soviet Union and the Cold War Stalemate

During the UN's early years, the Soviet Union was, by a huge margin, the most prolific user of the veto. Facing a Security Council that often leaned toward Western interests, Moscow saw the veto as a non-negotiable defensive shield. It became an essential tool to block resolutions it considered hostile and to stop new member states it saw as part of the Western bloc from joining.

This constant use of the veto earned Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko the nickname "Mr. Nyet" (Mr. No). The USSR’s strategy was all about containment—using the veto to protect its sphere of influence and prevent the UN from becoming a tool of American or European foreign policy. This period cemented the veto's reputation as an instrument of superpower rivalry.

As a quick refresher, the veto only applies to substantive matters, which are the big-ticket items concerning peace and security. It doesn't apply to procedural votes, which handle the day-to-day business of the Council.

This distinction is crucial because it means the most significant decisions are always subject to the P5’s ultimate check.

The Shift to American and Chinese Vetoes

Once the Cold War began to thaw and eventually ended, the dynamics of veto usage changed dramatically. The United States, which cast its first veto relatively late in 1970, started using it much more assertively, especially on resolutions related to the Middle East.

At the same time, China's use of the veto has tracked its rise as a global heavyweight. For decades, Beijing was incredibly cautious, often choosing to abstain rather than cast a "no" vote. In recent years, though, China has used its veto more often, frequently in lockstep with Russia, on issues like humanitarian intervention and sanctions. This signals its growing confidence and a desire to assert its own vision for global governance.

The statistics tell a compelling story. The USSR had already cast 107 vetoes before the United States cast its very first one. Since 1970, the U.S. has become the most frequent user, casting its veto 82 times, often to shield Israel from critical Security Council resolutions. China's use remains more measured, with a total of 16 vetoes, but its activity has clearly ramped up since 1997. You can dig deeper into these numbers by exploring the history of veto usage at the Security Council Report.

Veto Usage by Permanent Member (P5)

To see these trends at a glance, this table breaks down how each permanent member has used their veto power since the UN was founded.

Permanent Member	Total Vetoes Cast (Approximate)	Primary Era of Use	Common Veto Topics
Russia (and USSR)	120+	Cold War (1946-1980s)	New member admissions, conflicts in Eastern Europe, sanctions
United States	80+	Post-1970	Israeli-Palestinian conflict, resolutions critical of US allies
United Kingdom	29	1950s-1980s	Suez Crisis, colonial issues (e.g., Rhodesia)
France	16	1950s-1980s	Suez Crisis, colonial matters (e.g., Algeria)
China	17	Post-1990s	Sanctions (e.g., Syria, Myanmar), humanitarian intervention

This data shows a clear evolution, from the early dominance of the Soviet veto to the more recent, frequent use by the United States and the strategic, coordinated vetoes from Russia and China.

A Tool for Protecting National Interests

When you boil it all down, the history of what veto power is in the UN is a history of nations protecting their core interests. Every permanent member has wielded it to defend its allies, advance its geopolitical strategy, or uphold its own interpretation of international law.

The veto is more than just a vote; it's a statement of a permanent member's non-negotiable red lines. It forces the world to reckon with the reality that global peace is unattainable without the consent of its most powerful nations.

This history shows that the veto isn't just a legal clause—it's a living, breathing political instrument. Its use maps the fault lines of global conflict and cooperation, from the ideological showdowns of the 20th century to the complex, multipolar challenges we face today.

The Real-World Impact on Global Crises

When a veto is cast in the diplomatic halls of New York City, the consequences can be devastating for people thousands of miles away. It's not just a political chess move; a single "no" vote can prolong wars, block life-saving humanitarian aid, and shield perpetrators of atrocities from justice. This is where the procedural concept of what is veto power in UN becomes a grim, life-or-death reality.

If a permanent member says no, the UN Security Council is effectively hamstrung—a state often described as paralysis. Even with near-unanimous global agreement, one dissenting voice can grind everything to a halt, leaving conflicts to burn and human suffering to deepen.

Syria: A Decade of Deadlock

Perhaps no modern conflict illustrates this paralysis better than the Syrian civil war. Since the crisis erupted in 2011, Russia, often joined by China, has repeatedly used its veto to protect the Assad regime from international action.

They’ve blocked resolutions aimed at everything from condemning violence to referring the situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This diplomatic shield has prevented the UN’s most powerful body from taking any real steps to stop the bloodshed. Many observers argue that this consistent obstruction directly enabled the conflict's horrific human toll to grow year after year.

The numbers tell the story. Over the last decade, while the Council managed to pass 454 resolutions, a critical 30 were vetoed. For a closer look, 15 out of 53 resolutions on Syria were struck down, as were 8 out of 12 related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can explore more of these UN Security Council voting patterns on Oxfam's website to see just how deeply P5 interests can stall progress.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

For decades, the United States has consistently wielded its veto to shield Israel from resolutions it deems critical or unbalanced. This has been a central pillar of its Middle East policy, used to protect a key ally from what it often sees as one-sided international condemnation.

The vetoes have covered a host of sensitive issues, including:

Israeli settlements in occupied territories, widely considered illegal under international law.

Condemnations of Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.

Calls for international protection for Palestinian civilians.

The U.S. often frames this policy as a way to encourage direct negotiations between the two parties, free from outside pressure. Critics, however, argue that it undermines international law and prevents the Security Council from acting as an impartial mediator. Each veto only reinforces the political stalemate that defines one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

The veto’s use in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows how the power can serve as a political shield for allies, effectively removing certain disputes from the Security Council's enforcement capabilities, regardless of global consensus.

Ukraine: A Veto Against Itself

The most jarring use of the veto in recent memory came in February 2022. Russia, a permanent member, launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine—a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. It then vetoed a Security Council resolution that did exactly what the Council was created to do: condemn the aggression and demand an immediate withdrawal of troops.

That moment threw a fundamental flaw in the UN’s security architecture into sharp relief. The very country committing the breach of peace was able to use its institutional power to block any response. This isn't a new problem; the veto has always been a challenge when P5 members are involved, echoing tensions from the https://blog.modeldiplomat.com/cuban-missile-crisis-conflict and other Cold War standoffs.

Forced to find another way, the international community took the issue to the General Assembly, which passed a non-binding resolution condemning the invasion. While a powerful political statement, it lacked the legal force of a Security Council resolution, proving just how helpless the UN's primary security body can be when one of its own goes rogue.

The Intense Debate Over Reforming the Veto

Is the UN veto an essential safeguard for global stability, or is it an outdated relic that paralyzes the international community? This is one of the most passionate and deeply entrenched debates in modern diplomacy, and it’s been raging for decades. A growing number of nations are demanding reform, arguing that the veto is fundamentally undemocratic and chips away at the UN's very credibility.

Critics often see the veto as a trump card that allows the national interests of five powerful countries to simply override the collective will of the entire world. They point out that it creates a two-tiered system of international law, one where the P5 are effectively above the rules they are meant to uphold. This, they argue, inevitably leads to gridlock, inaction, and a tragic failure to protect vulnerable people during the worst humanitarian crises.

The Case for Reforming the Veto

The arguments against the veto are compelling and often born from a sense of moral urgency. Those who want reform are convinced the current system just isn't built for the complex challenges of the 21st century.

Their main points usually boil down to this:

It's Undemocratic: At its core, the veto violates the principle of sovereign equality. It gives five nations a special power that 188 other member states don't have.

It Causes Paralysis: We've seen it time and again, from the brutal conflict in Syria to the invasion of Ukraine. The veto can stop the Security Council dead in its tracks, allowing conflicts to rage on and human suffering to deepen.

It Lacks Accountability: A P5 member can use its veto to shield itself or its allies from international scrutiny without any real consequences. This makes the pursuit of global justice incredibly difficult.

This deep frustration has sparked a whole range of reform proposals. One of the most talked-about ideas is to limit or even abolish the use of the veto in situations involving genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Another popular suggestion is to require at least two P5 members to cast a veto for a resolution to fail, so a single country can't block action all on its own.

The Counterarguments for Keeping It

Despite the powerful push for change, those who defend the veto argue that it's a crucial, if imperfect, part of the UN system. They don’t see it as an obstacle to peace but as a pragmatic tool for preventing even bigger conflicts from breaking out.

Supporters see the veto as a critical safety valve. It’s designed to stop the Security Council from authorizing military action that a major power would actively resist, which could risk a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states. From this perspective, gridlock is frustrating, but it’s far better than a global war.

The argument is that the UN's founders were realists. They understood the harsh truth that you can't have lasting peace without the buy-in of the world's most powerful nations. Changing that fundamental rule, defenders warn, could shatter the entire international security system and make the UN as ineffective as its predecessor, the League of Nations.

A Few Lingering Questions About Veto Power

We've covered a lot of ground on the UN's veto power, from its origins to its modern-day impact. But a few common questions always pop up, so let's tackle them head-on to clear up any lingering confusion.

Can the General Assembly Just Override a Veto?

The short answer is no. The General Assembly doesn't have the authority to simply cancel a Security Council veto.

That said, there's a fascinating procedural tool known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. This allows the General Assembly to take up an issue when the Security Council is deadlocked by a veto. It's a way of saying, "If you can't act, we will."

While the Assembly can recommend collective action—even the use of force—its resolutions aren't legally binding like the Security Council's are. Think of it as a powerful political statement that signals overwhelming global opinion, but it lacks the legal teeth for enforcement that the Council possesses.

Which Country Uses the Veto Most Often?

If you look at the entire history of the UN, the Soviet Union (and later, Russia) takes the top spot, having cast over 120 vetoes. Their frequent use, especially during the Cold War, became a signature move in early UN politics.

But the story changes over time. Since 1970, the United States has actually been the most frequent user of the veto. This shift is a perfect example of how the veto reflects the changing tides of geopolitics and evolving national interests.

So, Why Don’t We Just Get Rid of the Veto?

This is the million-dollar question, and the answer lies in the UN's own rulebook. Getting rid of the veto would mean amending the UN Charter. That's a monumental task requiring approval from two-thirds of the General Assembly and, crucially, the agreement of all five permanent members.

You can probably see the problem here. The P5 would have to willingly vote to give up their most significant power. Since they view the veto as the ultimate protection of their sovereign interests, that’s simply not going to happen.

Ironically, any proposal to abolish the veto would be dead on arrival—vetoed by the very countries that hold the power.

Understanding the nuances of the UN, from the veto to the fine art of resolution writing, is what separates a good delegate from a great one. Model Diplomat gives you the AI-powered research tools and strategic advice to walk into any committee room with total confidence. Start becoming the delegate you want to be by visiting https://modeldiplomat.com.

What Is Veto Power in UN Explained Simply