Amazon.com Widgets

Should the veto powers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council be abolished?

  • Equality of Nations

    If everybody is equal before law, then every country is equal before international law. The five permanent (?) members holding the veto power have jointly or severally defied UN General Assembly decisions passed with absolute majority. Thus the veto power has always been, and will be for ever, an undemocratic instrument wielded by the world powers to their own advantage as defined by their respective governments regardless of human rights international law.

  • Yes, because issues like Tamil Genocide in Sri Lanka can never get justice.

    It is officially said by China and Russia that they have pledged to use their veto powers to save Sri Lanka in case of an economic sanction by UN members against Sri Lanka. Thus, there is no point in passing any resolution by UNHRC (forget about putting the Sri Lankan president into UN court). Since China has invested so much in Sri Lanka, it would obviously not want any resolution passed against Sri Lanka. So, let's say that genocide did happen really. In that case, Sri Lanka would go unpunished, with China using its veto power. Issues such as the above can never get justice.

  • Deadheading all appearances of Reason

    With the Veto powers Intact, we have seen, time and time again, where the Veto powers have been used not as a format to address legitimate threats to National Security or In support of Protection of Lesser Nations, but for the Political Insularity of nations (Russia & China) primarily. Whereas a "Majority Rules" outcome would more equally represent the needs and benefits requried by unrepresented Nations. These 5 Veto Nations hold the fates of too many peoples in their hands to allow for a Veto to undo months, even years of work on existing issues, and to effective react to emergencies, ie; Wars whether domestic, ethnic cleansing, you name them. We also have countries who are so economicaly tied to the two VETO nations previously mentioned, that an Automatic VETO is to expected for them to protect their Major trading partners. It appears to no longer be a "Security Council" but more closely mirrors an "Economic Council".

  • Yes, the UN Should be Fair and Unobjective

    The UN should have a very subjective look at the problems and come to an agreement democratically. One country should not be able to stop any changes. If countries can then it seems to me that they can dictate a bit, as well as possibly change the status quo, slightly.

  • Just a Matter of Equality.

    The United Nations has members all around the world and I can't really find a reason for some of them to have veto powers. After all, that's not the equality the UN tries so hard to obtain in the world! Of course, there are corrupt countries, but those who have veto powers aren't behind, especially RUSSIA!! That ONLY protects those countries' interests and can obviously prejudice the others who don't have them. I can't even believe how so many people defend the veto powers. I'm so shocked about this.

  • totally unfair other than permanents as well as b/w the permanents

    The veto power of the UN security council is totally unfair. It harms other countries other than the permanents as the opinion on their basis is not given much importance as given to the permanents. Even if one of the members of the security council is not willing to a given appeal of the other 4 members the given appeal would be abolished & it would not hold any importance. In this way any of the permanent members could make their profit ( if any appeal is harming or against one of the permanents but in favor of the others or making profit of the whole world, it could be abolished by the unwilling member of the appeal. Thats why this veto power is unfair and hence, it should be abolished which would lead to the abolition of the permanent members of the UN.

  • Only benefits selfish countries

    "The Security Council failed to act during the Rwandan genocide in 1994 due to the hidden vetoes of France and the US. The Americans were interested in saving money and the French were interested in saving their ally, the genocidal government. 800,000 people died because permanent members considered an earlier UN intervention contrary to their interests" Celine Nahory
    Unless these veto powers are only for actions within these permanent 5, there is no point as to why France should vote on what the UN does in Rwanda.

  • it makes its own discrimination

    Because it has been written in the rules that there is no discrimination and members have equal right, but with the presence of veto right is contrary with the rules, and the veto rights is dominated by modern nations which have large ego with its self , and how about the developing nation which still not represented yet in veto right.

  • Abolish veto power.

    My point is very specific. If West is promoting democracy in the world, it needs to practice it first, mainly at UN and Security Council, and all other international stages. The criteria for veto power is biased and not in favor of the global peace. It creates further divisions in the nations across the globe, resulting into creation of more groups of countries (lined behind the nations who have veto power) and others, even worse, opposing the entire world like North Korea. This is time to abolish this unfair system of veto.

  • Many people dying because of veto

    In Rwanda and Darfur, people died because of a veto. It must be rid off. Everyone should have their own vote. It's absurd that 12,000,000 people died because of a veto. The United Security Council Permanent Members use their veto for their own allies. It's not a good thing to keep the veto. Risking more peoples lives isn't good.

  • A veto is a powerful and strong tool in the hands of a few responsible leaders of the council members of the UN

    All countries in the world are not on equal level of development. Especially in the part of the meeting of human rights and freedoms are huge differences between member States of the UN. There are still countries in the world whose governments are in the hands of people who do not necessarily represent the interests of the people even such officials be allowed to talk politics in the world frames they can bring catastrophic decisions for these reasons is necessary the existence of the veto in the UN council.

    Posted by: FTerrell29
  • The Veto is crucial in society

    Without the veto, dictatorship could happen. At the end of World War two, the world united nations was MADE to prevent any other world wars happening. Has there been one since? NO. no, there hasn't.
    In addition to this, the five countries who gained the power deserved it, and MOST are known to be democratic societies. if we had syria in the power five, would the world work? It wouldn't. The veto is imperative to ensure no bad, crazy actions occur.

  • I believe the UNSC P5 should keep their veto power because there is no reason to take it away.

    The resolutions that are passed by the UNSC are almost always non-binding and so, whether they are passed or not, nothing significant will change. If a resolution is passed, no one is required to abide by it. If it is not passed, no one is required to refrain from carrying out those actions. There is really no reason to take the time to strip the veto power from the P5.
    Plus, there is no way to do it b/c the P5 would obviously veto anything that said they would no longer have veto power ;)

  • Veto power should not be abolished.

    Certain countries have to be in charge. If you let countries like North Korea or Syria have as much power as other countries, this will only lead to chaos.
    The UN was created to prevent a WWIII from happening: so far so good. So why change a system that works?
    If veto powers are abolished, then unstable places in the world will be completely destroyed (Israel).
    People in society who do not respect rules are punished by law. Why should countries that do not respect human rights, etc. Be given the same power as others?
    You will probably say that the veto power is unfair and that it causes arguments to not get resolved. But think for just a minute. If countries in the UNSC have trouble finding agreements, doesn't that mean that multiple sides of arguments are represented? Take the Iran-Israeli conflict. Russia and China are allied to Iran whilst the other veto powers lean towards Israel. Although you may say Iran and Israel don't really have a say in the conflict because they do not have veto power, they do actually have quite a say in it...

  • UN is a democratic one...

    1. The opening words of the Charter, “We the Peoples”, reflect the fundamental principle of democracy that the will of the people is the source of legitimacy of sovereign states and therefore of the United Nations as a whole.
    2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, clearly projected the concept of democracy by stating “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
    3. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) lays the legal basis for the principles of democracy under international law, particularly:
    • freedom of expression (Article 19); the right of peaceful assembly (Article 21);
    • the right to freedom of association with others (Article 22);
    • the right and opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives

  • Why change a good thing

    In my opinion, the UN is fair. This is a system put in place in the mist of WWII and ever since has proven itself to be a positive international force in the world. It is understandable that the Security Council poses some challenges due to the fact that it was established to reflect the balance of global power. However, if a system is working there is no need to change it. While exploring the Security Council, Smallman and Brown (2011) have given some insight into what could happen if changes are made. For instance, they explain that China does not want their rival Japan to join and Argentina feels the same about Brazil. That being said, if changes are made, there is a risk of disrupting the system and ultimately this could have disastrous effects. Furthermore, if changes are made now, with each year that passes the balance of global power is going to change; thus, more changes are going to be needed and the Security Council is faced with instability.

  • It should not be abolished.

    Because there is nothing wrong that the Veto did. For example, in the Syria case, we don't know if it would be good if China and Russia wouldn't veto the resolution. Syria is similar to the other Arab Spring countries and when their dictators left the government, the situation did not get better theres still people dying and another dictator will come to the prime minister seat.

  • The veto power of P5 is regulated in UN charter: abolish the veto power of P5 will require an amendment of the charter.

    I do not think this issue is arguable, since it won't be possible to be happened. Abolishing the veto power of the P5 will require an amendment of the United Nations charter, while the amendment of the charter will require the consent of the P5, who won't easily give up their rights.

  • None sense ,

    Veto power has helped keep peace, and limit the human rights violations all around the world. Abolishing veto power will only lead to chais. It also prevents other small countries from joining and passing stupid resolutions. The P5 have created the UN, they have the right to have the veto power.

  • Any power taken away from the p5 members, you take away from the US...beside, the veto is crucial maintaining world peace

    Here are the reasons:
    1. The UN needs help from the P5 members to fund peacekeeping missions and a lot of other stuff
    2. Israel will be unfairly bashed, and US won't be able to help!
    3. US uses its veto to block all kinds of nasty things
    4. Veto is crucial for maintaining peace...We could hinder the cooperation of the P5 members, which could lead to all kinds of conflicts.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.