Abstention Obligation Under the UN Charter in the Light of the Subsequent Practice of the Permanent Members

A permanent member of the Security Council derives its veto power from Article 27(3) of the Charter of the United Nations. The proviso of Article 27(3), however, provides that when the Security Council is considering a non-procedural resolution under Chapter VI and Article 52(3) of the Charter, a party to the dispute to which the resolution relates shall not vote. It is also known as the obligatory abstention rule. The abstention obligation seems clear, but the practice of the obligation is not as straightforward. Some scholars argue against the abstention obligation because it has not been invoked for decades. On the other hand, some argue that treaty obligations cannot be modified or amended by subsequent practice. This paper argues that the abstention obligation under Article 27(3) cannot be amended by the subsequent practice of the Security Council, and it proposes that the General Assembly make an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an authoritative pronouncement in this regard.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Law and Policy
Published
2025-07-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33093/ajlp.2025.8
Primary Topic
International Law and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstention Obligation Under the UN Charter in the Light of the Subsequent Practice of the Permanent Members

Mei Yee Kang
Asian Journal of Law and Policy
International Law and Human Rights
article

Abstention Obligation Under the UN Charter in the Light of the Subsequent Practice of the Permanent Members

Mei Yee Kang
article en

Abstract

A permanent member of the Security Council derives its veto power from Article 27(3) of the Charter of the United Nations. The proviso of Article 27(3), however, provides that when the Security Council is considering a non-procedural resolution under Chapter VI and Article 52(3) of the Charter, a party to the dispute to which the resolution relates shall not vote. It is also known as the obligatory abstention rule. The abstention obligation seems clear, but the practice of the obligation is not as straightforward. Some scholars argue against the abstention obligation because it has not been invoked for decades. On the other hand, some argue that treaty obligations cannot be modified or amended by subsequent practice. This paper argues that the abstention obligation under Article 27(3) cannot be amended by the subsequent practice of the Security Council, and it proposes that the General Assembly make an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an authoritative pronouncement in this regard.

Asian Journal of Law and PolicyVol. 5(2)
Partners In Care (US), Global Water Partnership West Africa (BF), Community Partners (US)
Universiteit Leiden
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
International Law and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.