Lesson 14 min 20 XP
The P5 and Veto Power
How the five permanent members use their veto, why it matters, and what it means for every resolution you draft.
Ask about this lesson
For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.Skip to main content
How the five permanent members use their veto, why it matters, and what it means for every resolution you draft.
The veto is the defining feature of the Security Council. Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, any substantive resolution requires at least nine affirmative votes out of fifteen members and no negative vote from any of the five permanent members. A single P5 negative vote kills the resolution, regardless of how many other countries support it.
Crucially, the veto only applies to substantive matters, not procedural ones. Determining whether a matter is substantive or procedural is itself a substantive question, meaning the P5 can veto the classification. This is sometimes called the "double veto," though it is rarely invoked in practice. Abstentions by P5 members do not count as vetoes, which creates important strategic space.
Each P5 member has distinct veto patterns shaped by their strategic interests:
Russia has cast the most vetoes in the post-Cold War era, primarily to block resolutions on Syria, Ukraine, and interventions it views as Western-led regime change. Russia frequently frames its vetoes as defending sovereignty against interference.
China vetoes less frequently but consistently blocks resolutions that could set precedents for intervention in what it considers internal affairs. It has vetoed or threatened vetoes on Myanmar, North Korea sanctions expansion, and any resolution mentioning Taiwan.
United States has used its veto most often to shield Israel from resolutions critical of its policies in the Palestinian territories. The US has cast more vetoes on Israel-related resolutions than on any other single issue.
France and the United Kingdom have not cast a veto since 1989. France has publicly called for P5 members to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocity, though this proposal has no binding effect.
If you represent a P5 member, your veto is your ultimate leverage. You do not need to convince a majority; you just need to avoid being isolated. Your goal is to shape the resolution to your liking during negotiation, using the implicit threat of your veto to extract concessions.
If you represent a non-permanent member, your primary challenge is writing a resolution that secures nine votes while avoiding all five vetoes. This often means weaker language than you would prefer, because getting something passed is better than getting nothing. The art of SC diplomacy for elected members is finding the strongest possible text that no P5 member will block.
Since 1946 the veto has been cast well over 300 times. The pattern has shifted sharply across eras.
| Period | Heaviest user | Typical targets |
|---|---|---|
| 1946–1965 | Soviet Union (the 'Mr Nyet' era, 100+ vetoes) | Membership applications, Cold War disputes |
| 1966–1990 | United States becomes the leading user | Middle East, southern Africa |
| 1991–present | Russia and China | Syria, Ukraine, Myanmar, sanctions |
France and the United Kingdom have not cast a veto since December 1989.
Between 2011 and 2023 Russia vetoed more than a dozen draft resolutions on Syria, often jointly with China, blocking sanctions, accountability referrals to the International Criminal Court, and the renewal of cross-border humanitarian aid. Yet one resolution passed unanimously — Resolution 2118 (27 September 2013) — which required Syria to destroy its declared chemical-weapons stockpile. It succeeded because it was carefully negotiated to avoid any automatic enforcement trigger that Russia would veto. The contrast is the core lesson: in the modern Council, the achievable resolution is the one drafted around the veto, not against it.