(a) Discuss the powers of the Security Council for the maintenance of world peace and security. Has the 'Veto Power' proved a…

The UN's peace mandate is strongest in the Security Council, but its effectiveness is shaped by veto, economic order and counter-terrorism.

Powers and veto Under the Charter, the Council has primary responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security (Art. 24). It distinguishes pacific settlement (Ch. VI, Arts. 33-38) from enforcement (Ch. VII). Under Art. 39 it determines the existence of a threat, breach, or act of aggression. Art. 40 allows provisional measures; Art. 41 non-forced measures such as sanctions, blockades, asset freezes and interruption of communications; the Council may also impose arms embargoes and travel bans; Art. 42 armed force; Art. 43 arrangements for armed forces. These powers are central to collective security, allowing the UN to move from recommendations to binding obligations. But Art. 27(3) requires concurring votes of permanent members for substantive decisions, giving veto. Its original purpose was great-power unanimity, ensuring major-power participation and preventing the Council from acting against them. Yet veto has often paralysed action, sometimes preventing the Council from even defining a threat under Art. 39. In Syria 2011-2022, Russia and China vetoes blocked resolutions on chemical weapons, ceasefire, and accountability, enabling the conflict. In Ukraine 2022, Russia vetoed condemnations and prevented binding action. In Gaza 2023-24, vetoes delayed or blocked resolutions on ceasefire, humanitarian access, and accountability. The GA's Uniting for Peace Res. 377(V) can recommend collective measures when the Council fails, but cannot replace binding enforcement. Reforms include the G4 initiative (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) seeking permanent seats, veto restraint, and expanded membership.

NIEO and CERDS The 1974 UN Declaration on NIEO (GA Res. 3201 S-VI) and CERDS (GA Res. 3281) sought to correct structural inequality in the international economy. They affirmed permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the right to nationalise or transfer ownership with appropriate compensation, equitable trade, technology transfer, and special treatment for developing states. The Declaration linked economic rights to development, arguing that peace required reducing North-South disparities through reform of trade, finance and commodity prices. CERDS gave states broad economic rights, including control over transnationals and the right to choose their economic system. Their legal status is limited: GA resolutions are not self-executing, and post-1990s liberalisation, WTO rules, investment treaties and IMF/World Bank conditionality weakened their force. Yet they remain normative benchmarks for sovereignty, development and a fair economic order.

Terrorism and human rights Terrorism threatens humanity by attacking civilians, destabilising states and violating rights to life, liberty and security. The UN framework includes sectoral conventions such as the 1963 Tokyo Convention, which criminalised unlawful seizure of aircraft, and Security Council Res. 1373 (2001), obliging states to criminalise financing, deny safe haven, and prevent terrorist acts; Res. 1566 (2004) states terrorist acts are under no circumstances justifiable by political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar considerations. But counter-terrorism must respect due process, fair trial, prohibition of torture, and non-discrimination. India's experience shows tension: POTA was struck down in 2004 as excessive; UAPA remains, with Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) allowing preventive detention for terrorism, while in Arup Bhuyan (2011) it required more than passive association; that 2011 view was later overruled in Arup Bhuyan (2023), upholding UAPA's criminalisation of membership of a banned organisation.

Way forward The three issues are linked: economic marginalisation and Council dysfunction can fuel terrorism, while security measures can erode rights. A way forward requires Council reform and responsible veto restraint, revival of NIEO principles through equitable trade and development, and counter-terrorism anchored in human rights, rule of law and proportionality. India's claim for permanent membership should be tied to greater accountability and inclusive human security.