Why UN Israel-Gaza vote will not overrule US veto

Professor Rosa Freedman, University of Reading professor of law, conflict and global development - an expert on the United Nations and international law and author of Failing to Protect: The UN and the Politicisation of Human Rights.

Commenting on Egypt's decision to invoke a UN resolution, Professor Freedman said: "Egypt has invoked Resolution 377A(V) (Uniting for Peace) to call an emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly to discuss Israel and Gaza. It has done so because the UN Security Council did not take action on Friday. It is not clear what this will or can achieve.

"Uniting for Peace does not enable the General Assembly to circumvent Security Council decisions. Essentially, the resolution sets out that if the Council does not take action to maintain international peace and security, the Assembly may (at a regular or emergency session) make recommendations to restore that peace and security.

"It does not actually give the Assembly the Council's enforcement powers, but rather enables the Assembly to use its existing powers or to make recommendations that member states may or may not choose to adopt.

"Those existing powers include calling for an International Court of Justice advisory opinion which are not legally binding, allocating funds from the UN budget to an issue, establishing investigative mechanisms, or calling for states to do or not do certain things. It has created a UN disengagement and supervising force, with the state concerned's consent, and with monitoring rather than enforcement powers.

"None of these are the kind of coercive measures that the Council can deploy, such as sanctions, embargoes, no-fly zones, peacekeeping operations, and authorised use of force.

"Uniting for Peace has been used 13 times in 74 years, most recently in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. It is a way of UN member states showing their frustration that the Security Council is deadlocked. But the UN was created in such a way that makes the five permanent members unaccountable for how they use the veto, and makes the rest of the UN system impotent when they do.

"The Uniting for Peace resolution was adopted in 1950 when the Security Council was deadlocked owing to Cold War politics. The five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, and USA) were split along Cold War lines, and would use their veto powers accordingly. This rendered the Council largely impotent other than on matters about which neither side felt strongly. And given that the Security Council is the only body with enforcement powers, there was concern that the UN would fail to address threats to peace and security.

"Uniting for Peace is aimed specifically at times when the Security Council does not act because there is not unanimity among its permanent members. Or, to put it another way, it is an attempt to circumvent one of those members using their veto power to block a Council resolution or action.

"The reason why those permanent members hold a veto power over Security Council action is because they were the five 'Great Powers' that defeated Nazi Germany, and because they wanted a permanent say over threats to international peace and security. So, it would seem unlikely that those states would have left open a backdoor route to allow UN action that would circumvent the veto power."