The United Nations Organisation (UNO), once considered the número uno conflict-resolution option for the world, seems to have failed to deliver. Data analysis of resolutions tabled in the UN Security Council (UNSC), compared with those adopted or implemented, supports this claim. These resolutions mostly demanded that states cease rhetoric or fire, withdraw troops, vacate annexed lands, or end human rights abuses. The gap between draft tabling and implementation remained infested with contentious vetoes. The practice manifested a pattern indicative of absolving a permanent five (P5) member of the UNSC either from the violation of the Charter it committed or from protecting its close ally.

The veto power was the sine qua non for the creation of UNO and was provided under Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, based on mutual agreement between the erstwhile USSR, USA and UK, under the Yalta Declaration of February 1945. The need for a veto was advocated, citing the failure of unanimous adoption of resolutions on a majority-rule basis, as a reason for the disbanding of UNO’s predecessor, the League of Nations.

Therefore, granting veto power to bigger powers was considered to influence the outcomes to make the UN deliver. The P5 states also linked their role as world peace guarantors to the veto power. Notwithstanding, a strong dissenting view considered the veto arrangement as a breach of the principle of sovereign equality for all, and the same echoes even today.

According to UNO’s own report, from 1946 till the end of 2025, P5 member states have cast 320 vetoes, blocking 264........

© Daily Times