General Assembly Delegates Demand Overhaul of Security Council Veto amid Alarm over Its Use to Enable Impunity, Shield Narrow Interests, Obstruct Cooperation
Meetings Coverage
General Assembly/Plenary
Eightieth Session,
47th Meeting (AM)
GA/12733
20 November 2025
While a recent initiative triggering a General Assembly meeting each time a Security Council veto is cast has yielded more scrutiny and given non-members a stronger voice, fresher and even more radical changes — including reform of the Council itself — are now critical, delegates stressed today, as the 193-member Assembly considered the application of that highly controversial tool.
Representatives said that, since the 2022 adoption of resolution 76/262 — widely known as the "veto initiative" — 17 vetoes have triggered 17 meetings of the General Assembly. Many speakers welcomed the Assembly's ability to take up the most crucial peace and security matters of our time, from the ongoing war in Ukraine to Israel's war in the Gaza Strip. However, some voiced frustration that those meetings had little tangible impact, while others warned that ignoring widespread negative perceptions of the veto — and the Council's resulting inaction — risks rendering the UN irrelevant in the public eye.
"[The UN] is not only being seen as one body, but as a family together," said Annalena Baerbock (Germany), President of the General Assembly. Too many times, the Organization has been unable to deliver on its most crucial task: saving future generations from the scourge of war. "The Security Council has, far too often, been deadlocked on the most devastating conflicts," she said, noting each veto cast by a permanent member may lead "real people watching in real time [to] question the credibility and legitimacy not only of the Council, but of the UN in its entirety".
Security Council Reform: 'Poster Child' of Multilateralism's Shortcomings
Describing the need for Security Council reform as a "poster child" of the multilateral system's shortcomings, she welcomed the 2022 veto initiative and asked delegates to explore what other tools and methods they might propose. "This is an opportunity to demonstrate, even in this fragmented time, that multilateralism is alive," she stressed.
"The veto, once envisioned as a safeguard for peace, has too often become a barrier to collective action," said Latvia's representative, speaking for the Baltic and Nordic States. Voicing deep regret that vetoes have been cast four times so far in 2025, she emphasized that no State stands above international law, including the UN Charter. "Time and again, we have seen the veto used or threatened to block Council action to protect civilians in Sudan and Gaza," she said. "The veto must never serve as a shield for impunity or as an instrument that silences the suffering."
Going further, the representative of Malaysia declared: "The veto power is outdated, undemocratic and is against the principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States." His delegation has consistently opposed its use, including when it was intended to block resolutions aimed at securing a ceasefire, ensuring unfettered humanitarian access and preventing the further destabilization of entire regions. In addition, Malaysia has advocated for new rules by which the veto must be exercised by at least two permanent Council members, supported by three non-permanent members and should then require endorsement by the General Assembly through a simple majority vote.
Other speakers throughout the debate questioned the very existence of the veto power. Kenya's delegate, for one, argued that the question is not just institutional, but moral, political and historical. The veto is "the greatest embodiment and symbol of anti-democratic conduct in the world", used to assert impunity, and too often, to protect narrow interests and block action on urgent humanitarian crises, he said.
Ignoring Calls for Veto Reform 'Recipe for Irrelevance'
Meanwhile, several speakers spotlighted the risks posed to the UN system's credibility by a largely negative public perception of the veto power — and widespread belief that the UN has been left toothless by its frequent use. The representative of Poland recalled reading the comment-thread under a recent UN social media post, where numerous users called for urgent reform and more tangible action. "Central to these calls was the use of the veto," he said, warning: "These calls are coming at us from all sides — ignoring them is a recipe for the Organization's irrelevance."
New Zealand's delegate was among those speakers who praised the Assembly's adoption of the veto initiative as a landmark moment and a step in the right direction. "Unfortunately, since its adoption, resolution 76/262 has been activated too many times," she said, recalling that, in 2024 alone, the world watched with frustration as the veto was used seven times to block important Council action.
Echoing some of those points, the representative of Luxembourg, also speaking for Belgium and the Netherlands, said the veto initiative has shown its "added value" by reinforcing that the veto is not a privilege, but a responsibility. Its implementation has enabled all countries to express their views and makes clear that any veto "carries with it an obligation to be accountable to all Member States". Qatar's delegate agreed, welcoming the "more effective and complementary relationship" between the Council and the Assembly, while rejecting arguments that it allows the latter to "encroach" upon the Council's mandate.
In a similar vein, Liechtenstein's delegate, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said the Assembly's debates triggered by the 2022 initiative have shown that the veto is neither practically nor procedurally the "end of the conversation". However, he stressed that the initiative is ultimately meant to empower the Assembly on matters of peace and security, supported by resolution 79/327, which calls for greater transparency, stronger reporting and urges States to avoid measures that impede the prevention of atrocity crimes.
Veto Scrutiny Reaches Boiling Point
Numerous speakers focused their criticisms of the veto power on several situations with far-reaching implications for peace and security, human lives and the UN's credibility — cases in which genocide, large-scale war crimes and crimes against humanity are likely taking place.
The representative of Colombia said the veto has too often paralysed the UN even amid "the worst levels of cruelty and barbarity", allowing — by a single negative vote — the Council's permanent members to endorse atrocities. He therefore called for the veto's full abolition, warning that expanding it would bring "more paralysis and less trust".
France's representative, also speaking for Mexico, said the two nations presented a 2015 Joint Declaration aimed at regulating the use of the veto in such critical cases. "We could not, and we should not, resign ourselves to the paralysis of the Security Council when mass atrocities are committed," he stressed. Now, a decade later, 107 countries support that proposal. "The veto of permanent members is not a privilege, but a responsibility," he said, urging the four other permanent Council members to agree to regulate their veto power in such cases.
Voicing strong support for the France-Mexico proposal and similar tools — such as the widely endorsed ACT (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency) Code of Conduct — Japan's delegate joined a range of speakers in sounding alarm that such measures are insufficient to fully deter the use of the veto in grave situations. Fundamental reform of the Security Council remains indispensable to correct its imbalance, he insisted.
Permanent Council Members Defend — and Dispute — Veto Limits
Another permanent member of the Security Council, the representative of the United Kingdom, described the veto power as a "significant responsibility" and recalled that his delegation has not cast such a vote since 1989. He welcomed that, since adopting the veto initiative in 2022, the Assembly has met to discuss vetoes exercised on the situations in Sudan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Mali, as well as the bocking of humanitarian assistance to north-west Syria and the conflict in Gaza.
The United States' representative agreed that her country takes its special responsibility seriously and exercises the veto only when it has a "compelling reason" that is also clearly communicated in writing. As such, she said the United States "does not support alteration or expansion of the veto", and opposes "any initiative aimed at circumventing the Charter's provisions" regarding the powers and functions of the UN's principal organs.
Also opposing to any limits on veto power was the representative of the Russian Federation. She described veto as the "cornerstone of the entire UN system", noting that, without it, the Organization would instantly lose its authority or any levers on international policy. Vetoes cast by Moscow in recent years have prevented the adoption of "half-baked" texts that promoted narrow self-interest, allowing more widely representative resolutions to pass — especially in the case of Gaza. "What ought to be criticized is not the veto itself, but the refusal of certain Council members to hear and take into account the views of others, to find compromise-based and balanced solutions," she stressed.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
