Author(s) :

Zihan He.

Volume/Issue :

Abstract :

The veto is a controversial part of the United Nations’ procedural rules, defended by the Permanent Members as a quality-control mechanism for resolutions and viewed as a symbol of the Council’s oligarchical system and obstacle to meaningful action in politically strife questions such as Israel-Palestine. Previous research on Security Council resolutions indicates that wording has an impact on whether or not a resolution is passed, as well as the existence of two clear, consistent narratives within the body. This paper uses mixed methodology – qualitative research is used to compare how often vetoed resolutions use strong terms compared to passed ones, as well as word count and Regional Group patterns in resolution sponsorship. Vetoed resolutions were found to have more average occurrences of strong terms and a greater average word count, as well as the pattern that US vetoes were almost exclusively on draft resolutions with a majority-Arab authorship. In qualitative analysis, the paper found that China and Russia had the same veto reasons and vetoed with each other. The US was found to have generally consistent reasoning throughout the time periods examined. Some veto reasoning observed across the three countries directly countered each other. These findings provide insight into the writing and veto habits of Council members and reveal the importance of pursuing solutions in the United Nations system beyond the Security Council, as well as the potential current value of the veto in conflict prevention.