Globalization and great power rivalries have diminished the scope of sovereignty through interconnected economies and crises, placing control in the hands of superpowers. Consequently, it is challenging for the UN to maintain an upright position to enforce its principles fairly among all member states, as the influence of power often dictates actions beyond its established mandate.
The UN Charter’s Article 2(1) enshrines the principle of sovereign equality, asserting that every state—regardless of size—should have equal standing. However, when the UN was founded in 1945, its architects understood that the organization would falter without the involvement of major powers, as had occurred with the League of Nations.
At the San Francisco Conference in 1945, the founders of the UN believed that granting the U.S., USSR, UK, France, and later China, permanent seats with veto power would enable these nations to engage in the UN Security Council and help maintain balance whenever international peace was threatened, thus preventing the collapse that had beset the League of Nations.
Today, however, great powers frequently violate UNSC peace mandates, transforming the Security Council into a battleground for power politics rather than a guardian of collective security. The Council often serves as a stage for geopolitical maneuvers, masked by the rhetoric of security threats.
Recent vetoes by Russia have obstructed accountability for its invasion of Ukraine. Simultaneously, the U.S. military actions against Venezuela have attracted substantial international criticism, particularly from Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and the UN Secretary-General, who have labeled these actions a potential violation of international law and a dangerous precedent.
The U.S. has defended its military intervention in Venezuela as lawful and necessary, despite widespread condemnation from various member states, including those with veto power like China and Russia. Washington has emphasized that Nicolás Maduro and his wife will face trial in U.S. courts under a narcoterrorism indictment first issued in 2020, framing the intervention as law enforcement rather than aggression.
Critics contend that the U.S. operation violates UN Charter Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity without consent, self-defense, or Security Council approval. The UN Secretary-General has expressed deep concern over the escalation and disregard for international law. Some experts and allies, such as Spain, have labeled the actions unlawful, while others focus on holding Maduro accountable.
The U.S. claims this approach leverages its right to prosecute alleged international crimes through domestic courts, arguing that the charges target individuals rather than resolving state-to-state disputes that require mutual consent. This perspective dismisses the matter as lacking substance that necessitates Security Council approval, despite widespread discontent among some UN member states who view such unilateral actions as breaches of sovereignty and the principles of the Charter.
The U.S. intention to prosecute Nicolás Maduro and his wife under its domestic legal framework does not violate international law, as prosecutors assert their jurisdiction is justified by the impact of drug trafficking on American territory and national security, consistent with statutes such as 21 U.S.C. § 960a regarding narco-terrorism.
The prosecution of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores under U.S. domestic laws does not constitute a violation of UN Charter Article 2(7) or Article 92, as these provisions do not apply to unilateral national judicial actions against individuals.
However, there remains significant criticism regarding the frequent breaches of UNSC peace mandates by great powers, which have transformed the Council from a multilateral guardian into a theater of veto-driven power politics, where “security threats” obscure national agendas. This power asymmetry undermines universal principles, prioritizing might over equity, particularly against weaker states.
This exposes the flaws in UN enforcement due to veto-driven selectivity. Today, power asymmetry has established a new norm that limits autonomy and sovereignty, surpassing established UN rules. Weaker nations, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and poorer regions of Asia, face compounded erosion through sanctions, debt diplomacy, and sometimes even full-fledged wars that violate national sovereignty under the pretext of addressing potential threats.
The UN’s architecture was designed to prevent unilateral domination, but concessions to great powers have entrenched precisely that dynamic. Structural power imbalances distort the UN’s promise of sovereign equality. This compromise reveals a paradox: the very mechanism intended to preserve peace is often undermined by superpowers, making collective enforcement difficult. The true rules of the game are not those connected to the UN but rather those dictated by the structural power dynamics among superpowers, who define conditions on their own terms through subtle interests.
In contemporary global politics, the actual rules appear to be dictated by structural power asymmetries rather than the boldly stated principles in the UN Charter. Sovereignty has increasingly become less a principle and more a bargaining chip within global economic and military hierarchies.
Although the UN Charter envisioned sovereign equality under Article 2(1), the veto concessions made by the P5 in 1945 have entrenched unilateral domination and distorted collective enforcement. While the Charter’s ideals of equality and collective enforcement remain aspirational, practice is heavily influenced by superpower rivalry and self-interest.
There is a pressing need to revisit the veto concessions made in 1945 in light of today’s global realities, aiming to create a fairer playing field for all, given the significant changes that have occurred since then. The fundamental flaws in the international system necessitate a core conversation about contemporary global governance.
Negotiations at the 1945 San Francisco Conference enshrined the veto despite opposition from smaller states, who viewed it as “victors’ justice” that undermined sovereign equality. P5 leaders like Roosevelt and Stalin insisted on it to secure support for the UN Charter, allowing any permanent member to block substantive resolutions, even those concerning themselves.
Global shifts since 1945 have underscored the limitations of the UN Security Council veto in a multipolar world. Decolonization empowered nations such as India and Brazil, while emerging threats like cyber warfare and climate crises demand agile collective action that is often hindered by vetoes. Since 1946, over 290 vetoes have been cast, primarily by Russia (approximately 150, including Soviet uses), the US (over 80, many related to Israel), and, to a lesser extent, China, the UK, and France, paralyzing responses to conflicts like those in Ukraine and Gaza.
The Russia/Soviet Union has the highest tally of vetoes, frequently using it during the Cold War to counter Western initiatives and more recently in Syria and Ukraine. The US has extensively vetoed resolutions to protect allies, notably Israel, while China has increased its veto use since the 1990s on issues such as Myanmar. This concentration of veto power entrenches the power structures of 1945, despite the P5’s outdated representation.
Ultimately, reforming the UN Security Council veto must address the paradox of a mechanism designed to safeguard great-power consensus that now routinely allows narrow national interests to undermine collective security. This tension erodes the UN’s credibility and the Charter’s principles of sovereign equality and peaceful dispute resolution.
Expanding membership to reflect multipolarity—by adding India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and African representation—would dilute the dominance of the veto without abolishing it outright. Such changes would preserve the UN’s viability while enforcing the primacy of the Charter over national vetoes, enhancing the collective enforcement of the principles outlined in the UN Charter.
You can reach the writer via gzachewwolde@gmail.com
