Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there has been a broad, worldwide consensus that Russia has breached international norms in its act of aggression. And yet, the United Nations—a body charged with maintaining international peace—has been relatively quiet in terms of punishing Russia. Why? To be clear, the U.N. has been active in criticizing Putin’s move—though, as we will see in a moment, there is a reason why this hasn’t been in the news much.
On February 27, the United Nations Security Council convened to discuss the matter. The Security Council has 15 members. Five of them are permanent: the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. You might recognize them as the winners of World War II more on that in a moment.
The other ten members are voted on by all UN states for two-year terms. Currently, they are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway, and the United Arab Emirates. A resolution was put forth to initiate an emergency session of the General Assembly, the main body of the U.N. in which all countries participate. Procedural decisions like these require a 60% super majority to pass. The United States, United Kingdom, France, Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, and Norway all voted affirmatively. China, India, and the U.A.E. abstained. And Russia voted no. But the 11 votes were more than enough to win. Since then, the General Assembly has passed three resolutions regarding Russia’s behavior.
First, it “strongly opposes the aggression of the Russian Federation”, “demands the Russian Federation to cease immediately the use of force against Ukraine”. February 28 passed with ease. 141 green states voted in favor, and only five red states voted against. The remaining countries either abstained or were absent. On March 21, a second resolution that basically reiterated the first resolution passed with almost identical support. Finally, on April 7, a third resolution removed Russia from the United Nations Human Rights Council. This vote was closer but still had a comfortable majority. If you haven’t heard much about these resolutions, don’t feel bad. There is a reason that they aren’t being discussed in the news. Legally speaking, they are meaningless just an expression of frustration by member states. If you want something meaningful, if you want a binding resolution under international law, you have to go through the Security Council, not the General Assembly. And that’s where things get complicated.
When the Security Council voted to initiate a special session of the General Assembly, it took up a procedural vote. A binding resolution isn’t procedural. It’s an actual policy. Such resolutions also require a three/fifths supermajority. And if we went to vote to create the private session, we'd still have it. Only China, India, and the U.A.E. abstained. And only Russia voted no. But there lies the problem. In addition to nine affirmative votes, each of the permanent members has veto power. That means if even a single one of them votes no and all other fourteen votes yes, the resolution still fails. Russia is a permanent member, and Putin’s vote would obviously be a no. And that’s the short reason why the United Nations has not punished Russia further.
Although this may seem ridiculous, the U.N. was intentionally designed this way. Like many other international institutions, the U.N. faces a tradeoff between legitimacy and efficacy. If you take away veto power, the U.N. could pass resolutions that encroach on the superpowers’ policies. Countries like Russia may then refuse to participate in the institution. And the U.N. would cease to be the legitimate governing body of the world. It would be something more akin to NATO at that point, which defeats its whole purpose.
In that light, it’s not a coincidence that the permanent members were the winners of World War II. They were in a position to dictate the new world order, and they all pushed for veto power. Writing about the negotiations later, President Harry Truman said that “All our experts, civil and military, favored it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate.” As a result, the only feasible way for Russia to be punished by the United Nations is if Russia doesn’t exercise its own veto power. That might sound ridiculous, but it actually has happened before.
Originally, the Republic of China had a permanent seat on the Security Council, despite having lost the Chinese Civil War. That didn’t sit well with Stalin, and so the Soviet Union initiated a boycott in protest. But that left four veto players in the Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Republic of China. All of them were ideologically aligned As a result, when the Korean War began, there was no one around to stop them. This is how the United Nations Command in Korea originated. That is, the U.S. intervened in the Korean War under the U.N. flag because the Soviet Union was not around to vote no. The Soviet Union quickly learned its lesson and ended its boycott. Putin today knows full well the importance of Russia’s veto, and he won’t soon be leaving the Security Council. And until that happens, Russia won’t face true punishment from the United Nations.
