Pratidin
International relations25 September 2026The Hindu, Page 11

Should the UN Security Council's permanent seats and veto go?

Five countries can block any substantive resolution. Is that still defensible?

Published 25 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work

The Hindu's debate page asks whether permanent membership and the veto of the UN Security Council should be abolished, as UN reform returns to the agenda during the General Assembly's high-level week.

The UN Security Council chamber, New York.
The UN Security Council chamber, New York. Jdforrester, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The context: a France-Mexico initiative asking the five permanent members to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and other mass atrocities has gained wider support, with 128 countries, including the United Kingdom, backing the declaration in 2026. Critics argue that the Council still reflects the power structure of 1945 rather than today's world.

India is campaigning at the UN for a non-permanent seat and continues to seek permanent membership as part of the G4 with Brazil, Germany and Japan, arguing for 'reformed multilateralism'.

Practise this in the app: flashcards, quiz and a timed answer
Prelims

Prelims facts

  • Under Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, substantive UNSC decisions need nine votes including the concurring votes of the five permanent members.
  • UNGA resolution 76/262 (2022) requires the General Assembly to meet within 10 working days after a veto is cast.
  • India is part of the G4 (with Brazil, Germany and Japan), which seeks permanent seats; reform talks run through the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN).

Quick recall

Which Article of the UN Charter gives the P5 their veto?
Article 27(3): substantive decisions need nine votes including the concurring votes of the permanent members.
Who are the five permanent members of the UNSC?
China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
How many members does the UN Security Council have?
15: 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
When did non-permanent seats rise from six to ten?
In 1965.
What is the France-Mexico initiative?
A call for the P5 to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and mass atrocities; backed by 128 countries in 2026.
What does UNGA resolution 76/262 (2022) require?
The General Assembly must meet within 10 working days after a veto is cast.
Which countries make up the G4?
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan.
How is the UN Charter amended?
Under Article 108: two-thirds of UN members must ratify, including all five permanent members.

Prelims practice question

Which of the following is NOT a member of the G4 grouping seeking permanent UNSC membership?

  1. Brazil
  2. Japan
  3. South Africa
  4. Germany
Show answer

Answer: (c) South Africa. The G4 is India, Brazil, Germany and Japan. South Africa is not a member.

Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions

Recurring theme: Reform of the UN Security Council and India's bid for a permanent seat

  1. 2026 · GS2 · 10 marksCovers one partUse it in the introduction

    "BRICS acts as a powerful counterweight in global governance, actively amplifying the voice and influence of the Global South." Explain the role of BRICS in projecting itself as an alternative to other groupings.

    How to use this

    Use the unreformed, P5-dominated Security Council as backdrop for the Global South's search for other platforms, but do not present it as direct evidence on BRICS.

    • Critics argue the UN Security Council still reflects the power structure of 1945; its structure has not changed since 1965, when non-permanent seats rose from six to ten.
    • The Council has no permanent member from Africa or Latin America, and India, with about a sixth of humanity, remains outside it.
    • Vetoes have blocked Council action on Syria, Ukraine and Gaza, where mass atrocities were alleged, and P5 members can shield themselves and allies from accountability.
  2. 2025 · GS2 · 15 marksCovers one partUse it in the body

    "The reform process in the United Nations remains unresolved, because of the delicate imbalance of East and West and entanglement of the USA vs. Russo-Chinese alliance." Examine and critically evaluate the East-West policy confrontations in this regard.

    How to use this

    Shows how the P5 veto and the Charter's amendment rule keep UN reform stuck, and which limited reforms are moving; it does not analyse East-West or US versus Russia-China rivalry directly.

    • Under Article 108, any Charter amendment needs ratification by all five permanent members, so abolition of the veto can itself be vetoed.
    • Vetoes have blocked Council action on Syria, Ukraine and Gaza, showing how great-power divisions paralyse the Council in atrocity situations.
    • Workarounds are advancing instead: the France-Mexico veto-restraint declaration had 128 backers including the UK in 2026, and UNGA resolution 76/262 (2022) makes the Assembly meet within 10 working days after a veto.
  3. 2015 · GS2 · 12.5 marksAnswers it directlyUse it in the body

    Discuss the impediments India is facing in its pursuit of a permanent seat in UNSC.

    How to use this

    Lets you list the structural and political hurdles India faces, from the P5's amendment veto to competing reform blocs.

    • Article 108 requires ratification by all P5 members for any Charter amendment, so a single permanent member can block new permanent seats.
    • India pursues permanent membership through the G4 (with Brazil, Germany and Japan) and the L.69 group, and supports text-based negotiations in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN).
    • The Council's structure has not changed since 1965, when non-permanent seats rose from six to ten; India, with about a sixth of humanity, remains outside it.

Mains practice question

The veto power has made the UN Security Council unrepresentative and ineffective. Critically examine, and suggest a realistic path to reform. (250 words)

Model answer

The UN Charter (1945) gave five victors of the Second World War permanent seats and a veto under Article 27(3). The Council's structure has not changed since 1965, when non-permanent seats rose from six to ten.

Why the veto is criticised

  • Paralysis: vetoes have blocked action on Syria, Ukraine and Gaza, where mass atrocities were alleged.
  • Unrepresentative: no permanent member from Africa or Latin America; India, with about a sixth of humanity, is outside.
  • Double standards: P5 members can shield themselves and allies from accountability.

Why abolition is unlikely

  • Charter amendment under Article 108 needs ratification by all P5 members, so abolition can be vetoed.
  • Some argue the veto keeps great powers inside the UN and prevents direct confrontation, a lesson from the League of Nations.

Realistic reform path

  • Restraint: the France-Mexico initiative and the ACT code of conduct on not using the veto in atrocity situations, now widely backed.
  • Accountability: UNGA resolution 76/262 (2022) makes every veto trigger a General Assembly debate.
  • Expansion: new permanent members (the G4 and African Union's Ezulwini Consensus) with the veto question deferred.
  • Working methods: more transparency and penholder rotation.

India's position

India seeks permanent membership through the G4 and the L.69 group, supports text-based IGN negotiations, and backs reformed multilateralism.

Abolishing the veto is not realistic. Restraining it, making it costly to use, and expanding the Council is the achievable route.

The basics

Why this matters

Five countries can block any substantive decision of the UN Security Council, the body responsible for international peace and security. Vetoes have stalled action in conflicts from Syria to Ukraine. India wants a permanent seat, so how the Council is reformed, and what happens to the veto, directly affects India.

128
Countries backing voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity cases in 2026
Under the France-Mexico initiative, including the United Kingdom.

How the veto works

Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, procedural matters need nine votes, but substantive decisions need nine votes including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. An abstention is not treated as a veto in practice.

The Security Council
  1. 15 permanent membersChina, France, Russia, UK, US, with veto
  2. 210 elected membersTwo-year terms, no veto
  3. 39 votesNeeded for any decision
  4. 4VetoAny P5 negative vote blocks substantive decisions

Why abolition is hard

Changing the Charter needs two-thirds of UN members to ratify, including all five permanent members, so the P5 can veto their own reform. Reformers have therefore turned to restraint and accountability.

Paths to reform
Abolish or limit the veto
  • Needs a Charter amendment
  • P5 can block it
  • Seen as unrealistic
vs
Restrain and expand
  • Voluntary restraint in atrocities
  • General Assembly debate after each veto
  • Add permanent members

How we got here

The Council has changed only once in structure since 1945.

Security Council milestones
  1. 1945Charter creates five permanent members with veto
  2. 1950Uniting for Peace resolution
  3. 1965Non-permanent seats rise from six to ten
  4. 2015France-Mexico veto restraint initiative launched
  5. 2022Resolution 76/262 requires a General Assembly debate after a veto
  6. 2026128 countries back veto restraint

India's position

India seeks a permanent seat as part of the G4 with Brazil, Germany and Japan, and supports text-based negotiations. Africa's common position, the Ezulwini Consensus, seeks two permanent seats with the veto for Africa. Competing models, and the Uniting for Consensus group that opposes new permanent seats, keep reform stuck.

The veto
is like
A lock where each of five people holds a key that can keep the door shut
Any one of them can block a decision, including a decision to change the lock.

What is unsolved

Whether new permanent members should get the veto, how many seats to add, and how to make the Council act in mass atrocities remain open. The General Assembly's power under Uniting for Peace offers a limited workaround.

You now know

  • Article 27(3) requires all five permanent members' concurrence for substantive decisions.
  • Charter amendment needs ratification by all P5, so abolishing the veto is unlikely.
  • Resolution 76/262 (2022) requires a General Assembly debate after every veto.
  • India seeks permanent membership through the G4.

Go deeper

In one line: Five countries can block any substantive Security Council decision, and the debate is whether to abolish, restrain or dilute that power.

Why it matters for UPSC

GS2 asks about UN reform and India's case for a permanent seat. The veto question is the hardest part of that debate, because the P5 can veto their own reform.

The core idea

The veto was a bargain made in 1945: great powers would stay inside the UN only if it could not act against them. That bargain kept them in, but it also froze the Council in the power structure of 1945. Abolishing the veto needs a Charter amendment under Article 108, which itself needs every P5 member's ratification, so reformers have turned to restraint instead, through the France-Mexico veto initiative and a General Assembly debate after every veto.

India's route is expansion rather than abolition, through the G4 and text-based Intergovernmental Negotiations.

Numbers and dates to remember

  • 15 members: 5 permanent, 10 elected for two years.
  • 1965: non-permanent seats raised from six to ten.
  • 2022: resolution 76/262 on veto debates.
  • 128 countries backing veto restraint in 2026.

Where to go next

In one line: Reform is stuck between those who want new permanent members, those who oppose them, and a P5 that can block change.

The negotiating blocs

  • G4: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan seek permanent seats for each other.
  • African Union (Ezulwini Consensus): two permanent seats with full rights, including the veto, and five non-permanent seats for Africa.
  • Uniting for Consensus: countries such as Italy and Pakistan oppose new permanent seats and prefer longer-term elected seats.

The process

Negotiations take place in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) in the General Assembly. Critics say the IGN has no negotiating text, which lets talks continue for years without progress.

Accountability tools

  • The France-Mexico initiative and the ACT group's code of conduct ask the P5 not to use the veto in atrocity situations.
  • Resolution 76/262 forces the vetoing member to explain itself before the General Assembly.
  • Uniting for Peace lets the General Assembly recommend collective measures when the Council is deadlocked.

India's case

Population, economy, contributions to UN peacekeeping and its role as a voice of the Global South.

Where to go next

Article 27 of the UN Charter

The legal basis of the veto

In one line: Article 27 sets out Security Council voting: nine votes for any decision, and for substantive matters the concurring votes of the five permanent members.

Procedural versus substantive

Procedural decisions need any nine votes. Substantive decisions need nine votes including all permanent members, which creates the veto.

Abstentions

By long practice, a permanent member's abstention does not count as a veto, so resolutions can pass if a P5 member abstains.

Why it matters

Every debate on reform comes back to this Article, because changing it requires a Charter amendment that the P5 themselves must ratify.

Where to go next

G4

India's partners in seeking permanent seats

In one line: The G4 is a grouping of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, which support each other's bids for permanent Security Council seats.

Their proposal

Expand both permanent and non-permanent categories, with new permanent seats for the G4 and for Africa. They have indicated flexibility on the veto for new members during a review period.

Opposition

Regional rivals in the Uniting for Consensus group, such as Pakistan, Italy and Argentina, oppose new permanent seats.

India's use of the G4

Joint statements keep reform on the agenda and show that India's claim is part of a wider push, not a solitary demand.

Where to go next

Ezulwini Consensus

Africa's position on reform

In one line: The Ezulwini Consensus is the African Union's common position on Security Council reform, adopted in 2005.

What it asks for

At least two permanent seats for Africa with all the rights of current permanent members, including the veto, and five non-permanent seats.

Why it matters

Africa has no permanent member even though a large share of the Council's agenda concerns Africa. Any reform needs African support in the General Assembly.

India's position

India supports greater African representation and has aligned with Africa's call for reform, which strengthens the case for expansion.

Where to go next

Uniting for Peace

When the General Assembly acts instead

In one line: The Uniting for Peace resolution (1950) lets the General Assembly consider threats to peace when the Security Council is blocked by a veto.

Origin

It was adopted during the Korean War, when Soviet vetoes paralysed the Council.

How it works

If the Council fails to act because of a lack of unanimity among the P5, the General Assembly can meet, including in an emergency special session, and recommend collective measures.

Limits

General Assembly recommendations are not binding in the way Council decisions are. Still, it provides political pressure when the Council is deadlocked.

Where to go next

Take the 25 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers

Syllabus

Related stories