UNGA80 Agenda Item 64 – Use of the Veto
Statement delivered by H.E. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of states
New York, 20 November 2025
Mr. President,
I am taking the floor today on behalf of the following group of States committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262, otherwise known as the Veto Initiative: Albania, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, New Zealand, Kingdom of the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, and my own country, Liechtenstein.
Thank you, President, for convening this fourth general debate on the “Use of the Veto” agenda item since its consensual adoption. These debates provide us with the opportunity to take stock of the progress of the implementation and impact of our collective initiative and to reflect on the potential for its further development in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
We thank the Secretary-General for his public support to the Veto Initiative, and we appreciate your strong support for it, Madam President, including in your remarks this morning. We believe that the Veto Initiative has begun to realign the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly in accordance with the intentions of the drafters of the UN Charter, as well as our collective approach of our organization to questions of peace and security. It has strengthened the accountability of the Council to the wider UN Membership, in particular when action is blocked by the threat or use of the veto. Most importantly though, it is a tool for the General Assembly to use in the full exercise of its role under Chapter IV of the Charter to uphold peace and security.
President,
The Veto Initiative has also shaped the working methods of the Council and its Members. Since the adoption of resolution 76/262 in April 2022, the Security Council has produced 19 Special Reports covering every veto cast, in line with Articles 15 and 24 of the Charter – the first time since the 1970s that the Special Report provision has been used. Special Reports are now fully integrated into the Council’s Annual Report to the General Assembly, including in a dedicated chapter. Special Reports, of course, need not be limited to those produced as a result of the Veto Initiative. The State casting a veto has come to the General Assembly to account for its actions in front of the wider Membership on every occasion to date. The response of the Membership at every meeting convened as a result of resolution 76/262, including with respect to the vetoes cast on [two] resolutions and two amendments so far this year, indicates that the veto is neither practically nor procedurally the “end of the conversation.”
President,
More than anything, the Veto Initiative is intended to empower the GA on matters of peace and security. This Assembly has done valuable follow-up work in resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the General Assembly in this respect; calling for strengthened transparency between the General Assembly and Security Council, including in the summaries produced as a result of Veto Initiative meetings, as well as in Annual and Special Reports produced by the Council. The resolution calls on Member States to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end the commission of atrocity crimes in paragraph 7. Foremost amongst these measures, of course, is the use of the veto.
President,
Resolution 79/327 also notes the functions, powers, and role of the General Assembly laid out in Articles 10, 11, 12 and 35 of the Charter. It encourages the update and dissemination of the digital handbook “Assembly for Peace,” which provides the blueprints for exercising these prerogatives. We are pleased to support the Handbook, which is a vital resource for States exploring the role of the General Assembly in peace and security, and encourage all to read it closely.
Accordingly, we encourage Member States to continue to consider what action this Assembly should take when the Council is blocked by the threat or use of the veto. If the Council is unable to fulfill its primary responsibility under the Charter, of which a veto is the most manifest demonstration, this Assembly should consider its responsibility to explore our options for action. In doing so, we acknowledge that, while the Security Council has a primary responsibility to maintain peace and security, action taken by this Assembly is in line with that distribution of responsibility.
At a time when many States are considering whether this organization is able to maintain peace and security in the context of the Secretary-General’s “UN80 Initiative,” a mutually reinforcing relationship between the Council and this Assembly is required to deliver on that promise. The impending selection and appointment process of the Secretary-General will, similarly, be a test for the institutional relationship between these two bodies.
President,
Finally, we turn to the legal basis for the veto itself. As everyone in this room will know, the word “veto” does not appear in the Charter, but it is codified in Article 27, paragraph 3, where it refers to the “concurring votes” of the Permanent Members. Immediately after this phrase, Article 27(3) ends as follows: “provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.” The idea behind this obligation is simple: no State should be a “judge in its own cause.”
President, the implementation of this obligation by Council Members has been lacking for some time. In the Pact for the Future, we have all agreed to “fully implement and adhere” to this provision, something echoed in paragraph 9 of this year’s General Assembly Revitalization resolution. Unfortunately, the Security Council has been unable to fulfill the obligation, in line with rule 40 of its provisional rules of procedure for voting to be in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter. Members of this Assembly therefore have an obligation to ensure compliance with this provision, in line with their own obligations to the fulfillment of the Charter. We look forward to taking further steps together in this respect in the weeks and months ahead.
I thank you.