Eliminating the right of veto for the sake of equality and basic legal principles

Eliminating the right of veto for the sake of equality and basic legal principles

By: Dede Farhan Aulawi

The veto power should be abolished in order to uphold equality as a fundamental principle of law, particularly from the perspectives of justice, democracy, and the supremacy of international law. However, this issue is far from simple, as it involves highly complex dimensions of politics, law, history, and international relations.

Why the veto power should be abolished

• Violation of the principle of state equality.
  International law recognizes the principle of sovereign equality for all nations. Yet, the veto—granted only to five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China)—systematically undermines this principle.

• Obstruction of justice and peace.
  Numerous urgent resolutions, such as halting military aggression or addressing human rights violations, have been blocked because of the political interests of a single veto-holding state. This has often been seen in cases involving Palestine–Israel, Syria, and Ukraine.

• A legacy of historical injustice.
  The veto system is a remnant of World War II, when victorious powers were given privileges. Today, however, the global landscape has shifted. Emerging nations such as India, Brazil, and South Africa have significant influence but remain without equivalent authority.

• Undemocratic in nature.
  A single country’s veto can overturn the will of the majority in the Security Council. This contradicts the very principles of global democracy and fair representation.

Challenges to abolishing the veto

• Amending the UN Charter is highly difficult.
  Any change would require agreement from all current veto powers, making abolition practically unrealistic.

• Seen as a guarantee of political security.
  Veto-holding states regard the privilege as essential to protecting their strategic interests. Without it, they may weaken their engagement or even withdraw from the UN.

• A safeguard against unilateralism.
  In some cases, the veto has prevented hasty or potentially harmful decisions that could allow majorities to suppress minorities.

Possible alternatives

• Reforming the veto system. For example, requiring support from at least two permanent members before a veto can be exercised, or restricting its use in cases of gross human rights violations.

• Expanding permanent membership. Granting permanent seats—without veto power—to developing nations with significant global influence.

• Strengthening other international institutions. Bodies such as the International Court of Justice should be empowered to reduce excessive reliance on the Security Council

Conclusion

From both a moral and legal perspective, the veto power contradicts the principle of equality. In today’s world, which aspires to global justice and international democracy, the existence of the veto is increasingly difficult to justify. Yet its complete abolition remains a daunting political challenge. Therefore, gradual reforms appear to be a more realistic path forward than immediate elimination.