> I think this is the problem with the UN. The Security Council works with vetoes. It should be a bigger group of countries and work on a majority vote, maybe.

> I think this is the problem with the UN. The Security Council works with vetoes. It should be a bigger group of countries and work on a majority vote, maybe. There is a mechanism for the UN General Assembly—a bigger group that works by majority vote without vetoes—to act where the UNSC is deadlocked by one or more vetoes, special sessions under Uniting for Peace, a proposal the US successfully advanced after the UN response to the invasion of South Korea was only possible because the USSR was, at the time, boycotting the UN. The problem is that if one or more of the UNSC veto-wielding members are actively opposed, getting a coalition to enforce anything even if it passes in the UNGA is often extremely difficult, so while there have been some notable actions taken under Uniting for Peace, like the deployment of peacekeepers in the Suez Crisis over a dual veto in the UNSC by France and the UK, generally UfP resolutions end up as unenforced paper declarations.