[What is Veto Rights and Why Only 5 Countries Has It ?]

By Fatima Hendrazid

Every society, organisation or other forms of social entity has a hierarchy. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is deemed to be the most powerful council within the United Nations. Though all councils have responsibility and noble contributions to society, the UNSC is given the task to identify threats to international peace and acts of aggression. In addition, they are able to impose sanctions and use forces in order to maintain peace.


Within this council, there are only 15 members per term, with only five being permanent members (The Big 5). These five nations are the USA, the UK, France, China, and Russia. In addition to being permanent members, they also have veto powers.

A veto from any of these nations would lead to a prohibition of any resolution from passing. However, an absence from any of these members is not an equivalent to a veto.

Now, what were the terms and how long did the negotiations that lead to these provisions last?


How come only these five members have veto powers? What makes them so special?


In a family household, who tends to be in charge of making big decisions? Who chooses where to live, or on which investments are worth large sums of money? Parents, the providers, would make those decisions.

During the establishment of the United Nations, these five nations were viewed as industrially and militarily superior to others. By the end of World War 2, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill were considered as the most contributive leaders in ending the war. Thus revealing the military eminence of their respective countries, and China had already established their industrial dominance. France, however, had been occupied and defeated by Germany, but their commitment to the allied forces during the war secured them a spot as a permanent member.


In February of 1945, the Yalta conference was held in San Francisco, and there, was the United Nations charter written. The bestowment of the veto powers were made to ensure unanimity in actions involving the enforcement of peace within the United Nations. It was established to ensure that no potentially disruptive actions would be passed without the better judgement of the founding members.

By that time, The Big 5 had already shown their legitimacy in attaining unanimity through their actions leading up to the establishment of the UN, and they are conditioned to keep that legitimacy as beholders of the veto powers.


As time passed however, many believe that the abuse of the vetoes have been keeping the UNSC from taking constructive actions in international disputes. Making the approval of any effective resolution nearly impossible. However, the removal of these veto powers would contradict the original values of the UNSC and the UN charter established in the Yalta conference. These two countering ideas have now created a controversy about the powers of the UNSC.

Do you think that the Big 5 should still have veto powers?