DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
(PSCI 3720)
Prepared by:
NUR LAILATUL ZUHRO
1621342
TITLE OF THESIS:
VETO POWER IN UNITED NATION SECURITY COUNCIL
Supervised by :
- ISHTIAQ HOSSAIN
International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM)
Gombak- Kuala Lumpur
INTRODUCTION
Veto power is a privileged power that is owned by permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations (UNSC), namely the United States, China, Britain, France and Russia. The existence of veto power is getting a lot of criticism from the international community for being abused for their own benefits (veto power holder country).
The abuse of veto power can be seen in the case of the crash of Malaysia Airlines in Ukraine. Russia vetoed the draft resolution number S / 2015/562 which contained demands to establish a special judiciary to investigate the crash of the aircraft, so that the UN Security Council could not adopt the Charter.
The existence of the veto is undoubtedly against the principle of equality of sovereignty. The principle of equal sovereignty places all member states of the United Nations in the same position both in terms of rights and obligations. The veto power makes the five permanent member states seem to have more sovereignty compared to other member countries.
VETO POWER IN UNITED NATION SECURITY COUNCIL
One of the most prominent organs of the United Nations is the Security Council. This organ consists of fifteen countries, of which five countries are permanent members and the rest are non-permanent members. The permanent member of the Security Council has a special privilege called veto power. Veto power is a right to cancel a draft resolution that has been decided by the most votes of the members of the Security Council.
The provisions in the UN Charter do not mention what a veto is and the purpose of the veto itself. The substance governs this right set out in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the UN Charter, which in general governs about the requirements that must be met for a decision to be made implemented. In procedural cases, decisions of the Security Council will be valid and enforced if at least approved by 9 members from 15 board members, including all permanent members.
The existence of veto rights raises the assumption that the five permanent members of the UNSC have a higher position or sovereignty than other UN member states. This was seen during the vote on the Security Council. Article 27 paragraph (1) states that all members has one vote (no distinction between permanent or non-permanent members ), but in Article 27 paragraph (3) states that non-procedural related matters then the decision must be approved by the five permanent members and then the decision can be implemented. These articles indeed show that there is a distinction between permanent and non-permanent members.
However, when we look back to history, veto power is kind of reward from the responsibility of the war-winning country world II on the task of maintaining international peace and security. But currently, the countries that hold veto power try to abuse power for the national interest. Like I said in the beginning, the case of the crash of Malaysian Airlines aircraft in Ukraine. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine said the Russian Federation’s veto must be seen in the context of aggression against his country. Dainius Baublys representative from Lithuania said that heinous crimes being dealt with are currently calling for answers from the Council. The shooting of MH17 is a threat to peace and security internationally and it is a deliberate act. 11 Some countries then propose a draft resolution to investigate the case by establishing a special judicial institution.12 Unfortunately, Russia vetoed the draft the resolution because it considers the problem is a case of regular aircraft accidents and do not interfere with peace and security internationally, so there is no need to form a particular institution.
Deviations made by the state holder of a veto make UN member states that do not have veto power try to reform the organization, especially the UNSC. The effort to reform is precisely constrained by the provisions in Article 108 and Article 109 of the Charter, which states that to amend the UN Charter it must be with
the unanimous approval of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Logically, it is unlikely that the five-member states will be willing to relinquish their veto rights.
CONCLUSION
The regulation of veto in the UN Charter is only implicit in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the Charter which states that decisions The Security Council on other matters (non-procedural) will be established with a unanimous vote of nine members including a unanimous vote of permanent member, provided that the decisions are based on Chapter VI and based on Article 52 paragraph (3) the disputing party does not allowed to vote.
The link between veto rights and the principle of equal sovereignty that is in The UN Charter contradicts each other. This is because of the veto owned by the Security Council only owned by five major powers the organization and thus contradict the principle of equality sovereignty which essentially states that every country has the same status, rights and obligations in the United Nations regulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) of the UN Charter.
REFERENCES:
- Charter of the United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html
- Security Council, 2015, Security Council Fails to Adopt Resolution on Tribunal for Malaysia Airlines Crash in Ukraine, Amid Calls for Accountability, Justice for Victims, URL : http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11990.doc.htm