Talk:United Nations Security Council veto power

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Veto Power Reform

I've made changes to veto power reform. It needs some citation and the like, and may not be in the style needed; as this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I understand if it needs to be reverted. Methulah 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda

I removed the reference to Rwanda as I don't see how the reference indicates that UN inaction was due to the veto. If there had been no veto, then the UN probably would have been just as slow to react.

Roadrunner 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN against war because of vetoed Israel Issues?

"[The United States] has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as seen with the 2003 Iraqi war which was not endorsed by the UN." -- Is that really the reason most of the general assembly didn't endorse the invasion? If it really was then the statement really needs references (as it sounds implausible otherwise). Lionfish

It would be great if someone created a page with an extensive list of every Security Council veto that's been exercised. Wingedbeaver (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list (up to 2009) is available here. I don't think they're all notable enough for Wikipedia; I would be content with an article e.g. for the most extreme cases where a resolution was rejected 14-1 (14 supporters, 1 veto). The US, Russia and China all figure in some such cases. Apparently the majority of these were indeed vetoes by the US on resolutions against Israel. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of vetoes

Do we have such a list (of vetoed proposals)? It would be pretty useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for a list of vetoed proposals. I suggest a table with the headings date, vetoing nation, proposal. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table of veto statistics

I really like the bar chart, but it is hard to quote and it groups far too many years together. I'd like to see a sortable table with the headings year, nation, # of vetos.

If breaking vetoes down by year is too much effort, perhaps by decade. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is it not a veto?

Why didn't negative votes by permanent members count as vetoes blocking resolutions 87 and 88?--86.132.33.255 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They probably decided it was a procedural issue, and therefore not subject to the 'veto'. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8AA:CCCA:F4AA:9D6D (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limits of 'veto' power

The introduction currently reads '. . . enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title.' However, the paragraph which describes the 'veto power' qualifies it with 'provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.'

So the permanent members cannot veto any substantive resolution. Article 52 para 3, and Chapter VI, both concern investigations or recommendations, and not military or economic action, but it's certainly reasonable that many decisions to start an investigation could be seen as "substantive". 2601:600:8500:B2D9:8AA:CCCA:F4AA:9D6D (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances

Under which circumstances is an UNSC permanent member not allowed to cast veto ? And this is pursuant to which article in UN charter ?

Siyac

There is NO VETO power in the Security Council. This article is utterly wrong.

Veto power is about to stop an already accepted resolution. UNSC resolutions can only be accepted with the consent of all the permanent members. The UNSC "veto powers" is a common misconception not needed to fuel. So this article requires a major rework.

There is an informal agreement that during drafting process any draft can be "vetoed" but that is not about the resolutions, but the draft. Any UNSC resolution lacks the concurring vote of the permanent members (or their abstraction vote) are null and void, according to UN Charter. Even if there was no "veto" during the drafting process.

UN Charter

Article 27 Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

--Kalpet (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Veto power in the United Nations Security Council

This would be in accordance with how Wikipedia articles are usually named.

62.63.206.43 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]