France and Mexico win support for voluntary veto pledge
128 countries now support a political agreement not to use a veto in cases of mass atrocities.
France and Mexico report new support for their initiative to voluntarily suspend use of the veto in the UN Security Council in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes. According to France, the number of supporting countries stands at 128. The agreement does not alter the UN Charter and imposes no legal obligation on the permanent members.
The initiative was presented by France and Mexico in 2015. The premise is that permanent members of the Security Council should not use their veto when a resolution is intended to stop or prevent mass atrocities. The countries want to prevent a single permanent member from blocking international action.
France says support has grown over the past four months by 21 countries from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. The new support was discussed during a ministerial meeting on the sidelines of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The Security Council has fifteen members. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are the five permanent members with veto power. A resolution can be blocked when one of them votes against it, even if a majority of the other members support it.
The proposed limitation is political and voluntary. According to the UN, it does not alter the formal powers set out in the Charter. The initiative therefore calls for self-restraint: countries agree not to use their existing right in certain circumstances. A permanent member state can still withdraw from the agreement at a later stage.
France links the proposal to the broader debate about the credibility of multilateralism. Supporters say that the Security Council retains authority only when it can act against the gravest international crimes. Opponents may counter that the five permanent members need their veto precisely to prevent the council from taking decisions they regard as threats to their security or sovereignty.
Its practical significance therefore depends on political pressure, not only on the number of signatures. Until all the permanent members are prepared to limit themselves, the proposal remains primarily a normative signal. It may lower the threshold for diplomatic criticism, but it does not legally remove the possibility of a blockade.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Franco-Mexican declaration asks permanent members to voluntarily refrain from using their veto in cases of mass atrocities.
- According to France, 128 countries support the declaration.
- The declaration does not alter the formal powers set out in the UN Charter.
Left
Arguments A veto should not block international protection when civilians become victims of genocide or war crimes. In this view, countries that can paralyse the system have an additional responsibility to use their power with restraint.
Values Human rights, international responsibility and the protection of civilians.
Consequences Greater voluntary restraint may enable swifter action, but without legal enforceability the risk of selective application remains.
Centre
Arguments The declaration is a realistic interim step: it does not call for an immediate amendment to the Charter, but builds political pressure and shared norms. At the same time, assessments of mass atrocities must be careful and credible.
Values Multilateralism, institutional stability and diplomatic feasibility.
Consequences A gradual norm may restore trust, but only if countries make clear who applies the criteria and how abuse is prevented.
Right
Arguments The veto is part of the balance of power that allows the major powers to continue working together in the Security Council. A voluntary limitation could be used to ignore the security interests of permanent members or to present political characterisations as facts.
Values National sovereignty, strategic stability and restraint in the use of international power.
Consequences Maintaining the veto prevents escalation between great powers according to this approach, but it can leave the Security Council powerless when a permanent member is itself a party to a conflict.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The current support, the voluntary nature and the existing veto structure were checked directly against French and UN sources. The text distinguishes political significance from legal operation.
- confirmed 128 countries support the political declaration on the voluntary suspension of the veto. — France Diplomatie gives this figure in the declaration of 21 September 2026. source
- confirmed France and Mexico presented the initiative in 2015. — The UN describes the origins of the initiative and the political declaration. source
- confirmed The Security Council has fifteen members, five of whom are permanent. — Official UN information on the Security Council describes its composition and the veto. source
- confirmed The agreement does not alter the UN Charter and is voluntary. — The UN and France Diplomatie describe the initiative as a political, voluntary agreement. source
Editor's note
The French government provides the current figures and the new support; the UN describes how the veto currently works and the voluntary nature of the initiative. The text makes no judgement on whether it is desirable.Sources
- Suspension du veto en cas d’atrocités de masse — France Diplomatie
- Security Council — United Nations
- Why France wishes to regulate use of the veto in the United Nations Security Council — France Diplomatie
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „verenigde naties”
- Trouw — „verenigde naties”
- NRC — „verenigde naties”