A Necessary Flaw: In Defense of the UNSC Veto Power

By Saanvi Gaddam

Edited by Isabella Phillips

Published 7/14/2026

---

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the body of the United Nations responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Established in 1945, it consists of 15 members. Five of those are permanent members with veto power (China, the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom), and the other ten members are elected for 2-year terms, without veto authority. The veto power allows any Permanent Five (P5) to block a substantive resolution, even when it has majority support. 

Lessons from the League of Nations

The UNSC was created in the aftermath of World War II to replace the impractical League of Nations. The League failed because major powers were absent from the council; most notably, the United States never joined. Additionally, it required a unanimous vote from all participants and lacked its own military force, meaning that the organization relied on voluntary sanctions from countries. 

The Case Against Veto Power

In recent years, the veto power has come under increasing criticism, with growing calls from the public and member states for Security Council reform. Many argue that the veto power is undemocratic, a bureaucratic nuisance, or responsible for unnecessary gridlock in existential moments of crises, specifically surrounding conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine, where permanent members have utilized their vetoes to block action. This debate has only intensified as global trust in international organizations has dramatically weakened, and frustration has grown over the UN’s ability to respond effectively to major conflicts. 

The Value of Keeping Great Powers at the Table

With that context in mind, I believe that the veto is not a flaw but rather an incentive for major powers to conserve global cooperation. 

Veto power is key to keeping global superpowers as members, as the five permanent members will not remain in the UN without it. In fact, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace finds that “the P5 vehemently defend their veto power in the council: they have regarded the veto as a sine qua non [“an essential condition”] of their participation in the UN”. The US, in particular, has signaled an unwillingness to stay in international organizations that do not benefit it, with President Trump pulling the country out of 66 international organizations just a couple of weeks ago. 

The exodus of the P5 from the UNSC would be deeply detrimental to upholding global stability for two key reasons. 

The first reason is that they would pull their funding, which would leave the organization with very little money to work with, as the Pew Research Center finds that they are almost solely responsible for financial support to the UN. In fact, the US is responsible for 22% of the UN’s regular budget assessments. China was responsible for paying the next-largest share of 20%. 175 of the 193 member states were each responsible for less than 1% of the UN’s regular budget. This funding is fundamental to the UN’s peacekeeping efforts. Without the financial backing, resolutions become null words. 

Diplomacy Over Confrontation

The second reason is that it prevents a tragedy. A key tenet of the UN is giving the five most powerful nations in the world a forum to resolve disputes among themselves through diplomacy, rather than through military action. Specifically, it seeks to prevent the P5 from going to war against each other. 

A Flawed but Necessary System

Historically, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and the Soviet Union brought their dispute to the UN, allowing US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson to talk with the Soviet ambassador in the Security Council about the evidence of missiles in Cuba. Their presence on the UNSC enabled both countries to signal their intentions in Cuba and refine their positions. Through back-channel negotiations, the United States and the Soviet Union were able to avoid miscalculation and nuclear escalation, ultimately preventing a nuclear war. 

At its core, the veto power prevents the United Nations from regressing into another ineffective League of Nations. The veto power prevents a catastrophe. It anchors the world’s most influential countries inside a shared system of rules, funding, and dialogue. And removing it does not create an accountable system; it creates a weaker one. A system that, like its predecessor, could not stop World War.