# How the UN Security Council Works: The Five Permanent Members and the Veto

> The UN Security Council is the only body that can authorise military force under international law — but the veto power of five countries means it is often paralysed.

*Section: World — By Liam Chen (World Affairs Reporter) — Published June 14, 2026 — 9 min read*

Canonical URL: https://dailyjunction.org/world/un-security-council-explained
Tags: United Nations, Security Council, veto power, international law, P5, Russia, China, diplomacy, UN reform

## Key takeaways

- The UN Security Council has 15 members: five permanent (US, UK, France, Russia, China) with veto power, and ten elected for two-year terms
- Any of the five permanent members can veto a resolution, blocking it even if all other members support it
- The Council can authorise military force, impose sanctions, and establish peacekeeping missions — it is the only UN body with binding enforcement power
- The veto has been used hundreds of times, often to protect allies or national interests, leading to accusations that the Council is paralysed
- Calls to reform the Security Council have gone nowhere, because any change to the UN Charter requires the agreement of the five permanent members, who benefit from the status quo

In February 2022, as Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting. A resolution condemning the invasion was put to a vote. Thirteen members voted in favour. One abstained. And one — Russia — voted against. The resolution failed. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, had used its **veto** to block action against its own aggression. It was a stark illustration of the Council's central flaw: the five countries with the power to enforce international law are also the five countries that can prevent it from being enforced. Here is how the Security Council works, why the veto exists, and why reform is so difficult.

## What the Security Council Is

The **United Nations Security Council** is the UN's most powerful body. Unlike the General Assembly, where all 193 member states have a vote but no enforcement power, the Security Council can make **binding decisions** under international law. It can:

- Authorise the use of military force
- Impose economic sanctions
- Establish peacekeeping missions
- Refer cases to the International Criminal Court
- Demand ceasefires and the withdrawal of forces

When the Security Council passes a resolution under **Chapter VII** of the UN Charter, all UN members are legally obliged to comply. This makes the Council the only international body with the authority to legitimise the use of force.

## The 15 Members

The Security Council has **15 members**:

- **Five permanent members (P5)**: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia (successor to the Soviet Union), and China (the People's Republic, which replaced Taiwan in 1971).
- **Ten non-permanent members**, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, with five seats rotating each year. These are allocated by region to ensure geographic balance.

The permanent members have **veto power**. The non-permanent members do not. This asymmetry is the Council's defining feature and its greatest source of controversy.

## The Veto: How It Works

Under **Article 27** of the UN Charter, a Security Council resolution requires:

- At least **nine votes in favour** (out of 15), and
- **No veto** from any of the five permanent members.

If any P5 member votes against a resolution, it fails, regardless of how many other members support it. This is the **veto**.

Importantly, **abstaining is not a veto**. A permanent member must actively vote "no" to block a resolution. If they abstain or are absent, the resolution can still pass (as long as it has nine votes). This has been used strategically: a P5 member that does not want to support a resolution but also does not want to be seen blocking it can simply abstain.

## Why the Veto Exists

The veto was not an accident. It was a deliberate design choice by the UN's founders in 1945, and it was non-negotiable.

The five permanent members were the victorious Allied powers in World War II. They insisted on veto power as a condition of joining the UN, to ensure they could not be forced into military action against their will. The logic was simple: the UN could not function without the great powers, and the great powers would not join an organisation that could compel them to act.

The veto also reflects a hard truth about international relations: the UN cannot enforce its decisions against a major power. If the Security Council passed a resolution condemning US actions, the US would ignore it. If it authorised force against Russia, Russia would not comply. The veto acknowledges this reality and prevents the UN from issuing resolutions it cannot enforce.

But the veto also means that the Security Council is often **paralysed** when the interests of the P5 diverge. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the US vetoed each other's resolutions routinely. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia and China have increasingly used the veto to block Western-backed resolutions, particularly on Syria, Myanmar, and human rights.

## How the Veto Has Been Used

As of 2024, the veto has been used **over 290 times** since the UN's founding in 1945. The Soviet Union/Russia has used it the most (over 140 times), followed by the United States (over 80 times). The UK, France, and China have used it far less frequently.

### Cold War (1945–1991)

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used the veto prolifically, often to block resolutions on membership applications or to protect its allies. The US used it less often, but increasingly to protect Israel from criticism.

### Post-Cold War (1991–present)

After the Soviet collapse, the Security Council became more active, authorising interventions in Iraq (1991), Somalia, Bosnia, and Libya (2011). But as Russia and China grew more assertive, the veto returned as a tool of geopolitical competition.

- **Russia** has used the veto repeatedly to protect Syria's Assad regime, blocking resolutions on chemical weapons, humanitarian access, and accountability for war crimes. It also vetoed resolutions on its own actions in Ukraine and Georgia.
- **The United States** has used the veto almost exclusively to shield Israel from criticism, blocking resolutions on settlements, Gaza, and Palestinian statehood.
- **China** has used the veto less often, but has blocked resolutions on Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Syria, often in coordination with Russia.

The UK and France have not used the veto since 1989 (UK) and 1976 (France), though both have threatened to use it.

## The UK's Role

The UK is one of the five permanent members, a status it owes to its role in World War II and its position as a major power in 1945. As of 2024, the UK remains a significant contributor to UN peacekeeping (though far less than in the past) and a vocal advocate for the "rules-based international order."

The UK's permanent seat is occasionally questioned. Some argue that the UK is no longer a great power and that its seat should go to India, Brazil, or an African country. Others point out that France and the UK both have seats, while the entire African continent and Latin America have none.

The UK government's position is that the permanent members should be expanded, not replaced, and that the UK's seat is justified by its military, diplomatic, and financial contributions to the UN. In practice, the UK's seat is not under serious threat, because any change to the UN Charter requires the agreement of all five permanent members, and none is willing to give up its veto.

## The Paralysis Problem

The veto means that the Security Council cannot act when the interests of the P5 conflict. This has led to repeated failures:

- **Syria** — Russia and China have vetoed over a dozen resolutions on Syria since 2011, blocking efforts to impose sanctions, refer Assad to the International Criminal Court, or authorise humanitarian intervention. The result: over 500,000 dead and millions displaced, with no UN action.
- **Ukraine** — Russia's veto has blocked Security Council action on its own invasion, though the General Assembly has passed non-binding resolutions condemning Russia.
- **Israel-Palestine** — The US has vetoed dozens of resolutions critical of Israel, preventing Security Council action on settlements, Gaza, and the occupation.
- **Myanmar** — China has blocked resolutions on the military coup and the Rohingya genocide, citing non-interference in internal affairs.

Critics argue that the veto makes the Security Council a tool of great-power politics, not a guardian of international peace. Defenders say the veto is the price of keeping the great powers inside the UN system, and that a UN without the P5 would be irrelevant.

## Calls for Reform

There have been calls to reform the Security Council for decades. The most common proposals are:

### 1. Expand the permanent membership

Add new permanent members to reflect the world in 2024, not 1945. The most frequently mentioned candidates are:

- **India** (1.4 billion people, the world's most populous country)
- **Brazil** (largest country in Latin America)
- **Germany** and **Japan** (major economies and UN contributors)
- **South Africa** or **Nigeria** (representing Africa)

### 2. Limit or abolish the veto

Proposals include requiring two vetoes to block a resolution, preventing vetoes on resolutions concerning genocide or mass atrocities, or abolishing the veto entirely. France has proposed that the P5 voluntarily refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities.

### 3. Expand the non-permanent membership

Increase the number of non-permanent seats to give more countries a voice, even without veto power.

## Why Reform Has Not Happened

Despite decades of discussion, no meaningful reform has occurred. The reason is simple: any change to the UN Charter requires the agreement of **two-thirds of the General Assembly** and **all five permanent members**. The P5 must agree to dilute their own power, and they have no incentive to do so.

Even among potential new permanent members, there is no consensus. India and Pakistan oppose each other's membership. Argentina opposes Brazil. Italy opposes Germany. African countries cannot agree on which country should represent the continent.

The result is stalemate. The Security Council remains frozen in the geopolitical structure of 1945, even as the world has changed beyond recognition.

## The General Assembly Alternative

When the Security Council is paralysed, the **General Assembly** can step in under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, passed in 1950. This allows the Assembly to make recommendations on international peace and security if the Security Council fails to act.

The General Assembly has used this power to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, passing resolutions with overwhelming majorities. But these resolutions are **non-binding** — they carry moral weight but no legal force. The Security Council remains the only body that can authorise military action or impose binding sanctions.

## The Bottom Line

The UN Security Council has 15 members: five permanent (US, UK, France, Russia, China) with veto power, and ten elected for two-year terms. Any of the five permanent members can veto a resolution, blocking it even if all other members support it. The Council can authorise military force, impose sanctions, and establish peacekeeping missions, making it the only UN body with binding enforcement power. The veto has been used hundreds of times, often to protect allies or national interests, leading to paralysis on Syria, Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and Myanmar. Calls to reform the Security Council have gone nowhere, because any change requires the agreement of the five permanent members, who benefit from the status quo. The veto reflects the geopolitical reality of 1945, not the world today, but it is also the price of keeping the great powers inside the UN system. The Security Council is both indispensable and deeply flawed, capable of authorising action when the P5 agree, and paralysed when they do not.

## Frequently asked questions

### Why do five countries have veto power?

The five permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) were the victorious Allied powers in World War II. They insisted on veto power as a condition of joining the UN, to ensure they could not be forced into military action against their will. The veto reflects the geopolitical reality of 1945, not the world today.

### Can the veto be overridden?

No. If any of the five permanent members votes against a resolution, it fails, regardless of how many other members support it. Abstaining does not count as a veto — a permanent member must actively vote 'no' to block a resolution.

### Has the UK used its veto recently?

Rarely. The UK last used its veto in 1989 (on a resolution about Panama). The US and Russia are the most frequent users of the veto in recent decades, often to protect Israel (US) or Syria (Russia). China has also used it to block resolutions on Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

## Sources

- [United Nations Security Council official website](https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/)
- [UN Charter — Chapter V (Security Council)](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-5)
- [Security Council Report — Veto list](https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php)

---
Daily Junction — https://dailyjunction.org/world/un-security-council-explained