A right that is increasingly contested within the UN. France announced on Monday, September 22, that 128 countries now want to regulate the right of veto in the Security Council, while a general assembly is taking place this week in New York. Currently, it only takes one of the Council's five permanent member states to veto a resolution, even if it is supported by a majority of the other members. All eyes are turning in particular to Russia, the United States and China, which regularly use it.
âA legally binding mechanism which would reduce the right of veto of permanent members would require, in practice, their own consentâ, a âparadoxâ, notes to franceinfo ChloĂ© Maurel, doctor in history, UN specialist and associate researcher at IHEID (Advanced Institute of International and Development Studies).
franceinfo: Is this initiative really likely to succeed in the short or medium term?
ChloĂ© Maurel: We must hope so! This initiative launched by France in 2013 then formalized in the Franco-Mexican Political Declaration presented in 2015 is experiencing significant renewed interest at the moment. France and Mexico announced Monday that 128 states now support the political declaration, including 21 new states in the last four months. This idea of ââwaiving the right of veto in cases where the UN Security Council deals with situations where mass crimes are taking place is very positive, and it could become a voluntary political commitment, not only proclaimed, but also implemented.
Is it possible or possible to make it binding on the permanent members of the Security Council?
Making it legally binding for the five permanent members is illusory. There remains a fundamental obstacle: China, the United States and Russia have not joined this initiative. However, for the text to be effective and applied, it relies on a collective and voluntary commitment from the five permanent members. In the short term, we can envisage a continued expansion of the number of states supporting the declaration, increasing political pressure (especially if the people put pressure) on the other three permanent members, possibly the emergence of a political norm of behavior according to which using the veto in the face of certain atrocities would become increasingly difficult to justify.
âBut it is much more difficult to envisage, in the short term, a mechanism which would effectively prevent a permanent member from using its veto against its will.â
The right of veto is directly enshrined in Article 27 of the United Nations Charter; to remove or legally limit the right of veto, the Charter would have to be amended. However, Article 108 provides that amendments to the Charter must be adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of the member states, including all permanent members of the Security Council. Thus, a legally binding mechanism that would reduce the veto power of permanent members would, in practice, require their own consent. Which leads to a paradox, because they will probably never do it!
Why has the UK just joined the initiative?
The UK has long supported the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) Code of Conduct, which calls on Security Council members not to vote against a credible resolution aimed at preventing or stopping mass atrocities. The UK had therefore already accepted the political principle that in a situation of mass atrocity, a permanent member should not use its veto to prevent credible action by the Council. What is new is that it now joins the Franco-Mexican declaration itself. Furthermore, the United Kingdom points out that it has not used its veto since 1989.
Why is the veto considered problematic?
The veto leads to the paralysis of the Council, and it is a totally undemocratic mechanism, since a single country with the right of veto can oppose, prevent, a resolution voted for by the majority of other countries. It creates an asymmetry, an inequality, between States. Furthermore, the veto can prevent a UN response even though extremely serious crimes are being committed, and it can be used by States for geopolitical purposes.
This abstention from the right of veto would occur in the event of âmass atrocitiesâ. What difficulties does this pose if the permanent members do not agree on its qualification?
The Franco-Mexican declaration refers in particular to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on a large scale. This choice makes it possible to rely on categories already existing in international law. But it doesn't completely solve the problem. Indeed, we see this clearly with the uses of the word "genocide" in current times, on which many States do not agree among themselves. The Franco-Mexican initiative, which is enjoying growing success, can become a widely recognized political norm, without ever becoming a legal obligation enforceable against the five permanent members.
