The conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and escalated into a full-scale invasion in 2022, is one of the most consequential global security challenges the world has faced. The violence and instability have widespread ramifications, including a humanitarian crisis, global food market disruptions, and escalating geopolitical tensions. Proposing a peaceful resolution and preventing further escalation should be a priority for the international community. Under international law, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is responsible for maintaining peace and security, but efforts to de-escalate the conflict through it have been repeatedly blocked by Russia’s controversial use of veto power, which elicited calls to abolish the UNSC veto mechanism. However, as it shall be demonstrated, the exercise of veto in the UNSC is an essential safeguard to its legitimacy in international adjudication.
Procedural Objection of Russian Vetoes Addressed
Article 27 of the UN Charter mandates that all disputing parties shall abstain from voting on their dispute. Thus, the UNSC should treat Russia’s vetoes in the Ukraine conflict as abstentions. Furthermore, based on the legal doctrine of abuse de droit, Russia’s intentions to use its veto power in bad faith, namely to “shield one’s own manifestly illegal action,” violate the principle of good faith in international law, which ipso facto renders its vetos null and void for UNSC’s consideration. Since the latter case is ambiguous in practical application, we focus on the former objection.
Lack of Legality and Enforceability
Firstly, the aforementioned abstention obligation applies only to dispute settlements under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which legal scholars widely regard as non-binding or unenforceable. Thus, even if Russia were to abstain from voting on such resolutions, their passage would carry no more legal weight or enforceability than a resolution by the General Assembly.
Subjective Definition of Dispute
The constitution of disputes also lacks universal standards. In the precedent of Namibia, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dismissed a petition from South Africa to nullify a UNSC resolution due to the participation of disputing parties, on grounds that the UNSC had not formally classified the incident as a dispute. This ruling effectively recognized the UNSC’s exclusive power to legally designate disputes. Thus, any decision to compel Russia to abstain from the UNSC would procedurally require Russia’s consent to classify the incident as a dispute, rendering it technically inapplicable.
Historical Inconsistency
Up to 2014, there have been only 19 cases (4 of which involved veto from a Permanent Member) in which members of the UNSC raised complaints regarding the obligatory abstention due to the participation of members involved in the incidents, all of which were to no avail. These empirical cases suggest that the exercise of obligatory abstention has become irrelevant, if not obsolete, in the proceedings of the UNSC, adding to its practical infeasibility in the Russian-Ukrainian context.
The Practical Necessity of Veto Power
On the other hand, veto power is essential for ensuring the legitimacy and relevance of the UNSC. The historical failure of the League of Nations in stopping World War II under the unanimity rule demonstrates how the lack of representation based on a realistic geopolitical power balance can undermine the legitimacy of an international organisation. Due to its inability to enforce decisions on member states, an international organisation’s functionality depends on its members’ approval and cooperation, especially those with significant geopolitical influence. The lack of participation of major nations in its agendas would thus render the role of the UNSC obsolete in international security arbitration.
UNSC as a Global Forum
In contrast to the liberal view of arbitration based on universal values, realists advocate for a balance of power. They propose an advisory forum with regular meetings between major powers rather than an international regime imposing decisions on superpowers. This echoes the UNSC’s role as a focal point for coordination. Such a system maximizes diplomatic potential, enabling consensus and concessions while reducing the need for unilateral action, thus maintaining the relevance of international organizations.
Conclusion
Despite its geopolitical implication, the exercise of veto power in the UNSC is necessary in two ways. Legally, restrictions on veto power under the abstention clause are inapplicable due to legal and empirical limitations. Practically, veto power remains indispensable for maintaining diplomatic balance among superpowers. The necessity of this balance is evident in historical cases, highlighting the risks of an idealistic system that disregards the interests of major nations. The functionality of the UNSC as a forum for superpowers will determine whether it can retain its legitimacy as the arbiter of international peace.
