Let the UN General Assembly decide, by a special majority, how to respond to atrocities blocked by a Security Council veto
In short
- The UN stops being frozen by one great power's objection when genocide or similar atrocities are happening.
- When a veto is used in the Security Council, the power to decide moves to the General Assembly, where all member countries meet.
- The Assembly can decide when two-thirds of member countries and countries holding over half of the world's people vote yes.
- It can decide on safe routes for aid, arms embargoes, sanctions, and investigations, but not on the use of armed force.
- A country that is a party to the conflict cannot use a veto on that matter.
If this comes true
In an underground clinic in a besieged town, a nurse opens a box from a truck that arrived ten days after the General Assembly vote, and tells an old man who has been waiting for dialysis that his turn has come today.
Perhaps
A great power angered by the decision might stop paying money to the UN, and in a tent school at a refugee camp, children might sit packed into a classroom that has one fewer teacher.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The proposal covers only four kinds of atrocity: genocide, crimes against humanity, large-scale war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. If a draft resolution on one of these is defeated by a veto in the Security Council, an emergency special session of the General Assembly opens automatically within 15 days. The Assembly can adopt the resolution if two conditions are met at the same time: at least two-thirds of the member countries present and voting say yes, and the combined population of the countries voting yes is more than half of the world's population. The double condition exists because counting only countries would let a group of small countries overrule a great power, while counting only population would let a few countries control everything. The measures the Assembly can decide are opening safe routes for aid to protect civilians, arms embargoes, targeted economic sanctions, sending investigators to establish the facts, referral to an international criminal court, and sending peacekeepers with the consent of the host country. Authorizing the use of armed force on another country's territory is left out and stays with the Security Council. In addition, a country that is a party to the atrocity, or that directly supplies weapons or troops to a party, may not use a veto in the Security Council vote on that matter. This change requires amending the UN Charter, and an amendment needs ratification by countries including the permanent members, so countries that agree would first sign an agreement promising to follow the results of Assembly resolutions themselves, and aim for a Charter amendment while growing the number of countries that keep the promise.
BenefitsIt breaks a system where one country's objection abandons lives
With this system, humanitarian aid and arms embargoes for places where atrocities are happening would no longer be stopped by the interests of a single great power. If great powers know a veto can be overturned in the Assembly, they will find it harder to use the veto lightly, and the search for compromise inside the Security Council will grow stronger. In other words, we can expect the debate in the Security Council itself to change even before the Assembly actually acts. The double majority requires voices from both populous and less populous countries, so neither side can win just by force of numbers. Because armed force is left out, the danger that a UN decision directly causes a military clash between great powers is also kept down. Banning a party to the violence from using a veto to protect itself also brings into international society a plain idea found in the laws of every society: no one should be the judge in their own case. For the people suffering, the unfairness of help being blocked by one country while most of the world is trying to reach out would visibly shrink.
DrawbacksGreat powers might leave the UN and decisions become empty words
The veto is unfair, but it was originally a safety device to keep great powers inside an international organization. An earlier international organization lost its strength when powerful countries never joined or withdrew, and it could not prevent the next great war. If decisions against a country's will begin to be made by a majority in the Assembly, great powers may stop paying their dues, ignore the decisions, or build their own frameworks outside the UN. Then sanctions and embargoes might be decided without the power to carry them out, UN decisions would exist only on paper, and nothing might change at the sites of atrocities. If the UN budget shrinks, even work unrelated to this proposal, such as refugee support and food aid, would thin out. A majority is also not always right. Regional rivalries or biased information could push through a resolution that wrongly brands a country as a perpetrator of atrocities, and the veto has also served as a check on such runaway majorities. Furthermore, amending the Charter needs the consent of the permanent members themselves, so the road to making this real is very long, and in the meantime promises could run ahead and deepen divisions inside the UN.
Learn the background
Again and again, in places where mass killing or indiscriminate attacks on civilians go on, months have passed with the UN unable to act. The main reason is the veto held by the five permanent members of the Security Council. Even if fourteen of the fifteen members vote yes, one country's no stops the resolution. Often the country using the veto is itself a party to the conflict, or backs one. The veto was granted after the Second World War as the price of keeping great powers inside an international organization, but as a result, the people who most need protection are abandoned for the diplomatic convenience of far-off countries. The ones who suffer are people waiting for food and medicine in besieged towns, children and elderly people with nowhere to flee, and the families of victims who go on living while the perpetrators go unpunished. The Assembly can pass resolutions of condemnation, but they are not binding, so nothing changes on the ground. There have also been efforts to ask countries to restrain their use of the veto voluntarily, but whether they do so depends on the mood of the great powers, and it does not work as a real check built into the system.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-20b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes