The Veto as a Political Instrument to Undermine International

Abstract

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the principal body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. It grants special privileges to its five permanent members, most notably the veto power. This prerogative enables any of these states to block the adoption of a resolution, even when supported by the majority of members, thereby rendering the veto a powerful political tool that shapes the Council’s ability to address international disputes. The veto is of significant importance in the international order, as it reflects the balance of power among the major states and allows the permanent members to safeguard their strategic interests. At the same time, however, its use can undermine the Council’s capacity to take urgent and effective measures to protect civilians in conflict zones.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) seeks to protect civilians and civilian objects during armed conflicts, while defining the rights and obligations of belligerents. Respect for these norms is an essential condition for minimizing human suffering in times of war (Al-Ali, 2020). The effective implementation of IHL, however, is directly contingent on political decisions issued by international institutions such as the Security Council. The veto often functions as an instrument of obstruction, making the protection of civilians in armed conflicts hostage to the political calculations of major powers (United Nations, 2025).

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict provides a striking example of the veto’s impact on the application of IHL. The United States has repeatedly exercised its veto power to block draft resolutions calling for ceasefires and for the lifting of the blockade on Gaza (Al Jazeera, 2025). Such selective use underscores the political character of the veto, whereby international humanitarian resolutions become subordinated to the strategic interests of great powers. This dynamic interaction between law and politics poses one of the most pressing challenges to the protection of civilians.

Historically, major powers have employed the veto to shield allies or preserve strategic interests. For instance, the Soviet Union vetoed resolutions in 1946 concerning the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria—an early illustration of the veto’s strategic function since the founding of the United Nations (United Nations, 2025). More recent developments in Gaza demonstrate how the veto has obstructed Security Council interventions designed to protect civilians, resulting in the continuation of blockades and military attacks on civilian populations and vital infrastructure—an outcome that highlights the practical challenges to implementing IHL.

Thus, although the veto is a legal instrument, it can serve as a mechanism for obstructing civilian protection in armed conflicts. This reveals the complex intersection of international politics and IHL, and underscores the need for rigorous study to better understand how political decisions shape humanitarian protection (Egyptian Center for Thought and Strategic Studies, 2025).