The right of veto, its history and application in our days

The very word "veto" means in translation from Latin "I forbid". This capricious expression, nevertheless, firmly entered the lexicon of lawyers and politicians. It is believed that for the first time the right of veto was applied in ancient Rome, at the time of the Republic; It was also called "tribune right". Tribunes - citizens of Rome, chosen from the plebs to represent the interests of citizens - could veto, namely, to impose a ban, revoke decisions passed by the Senate or the Magistrate. This prohibition was also called intercession. The only person whose decrees were not subject to such restrictions was the dictator of the Republic.

Thus, the right of veto is the refusal to adopt any draft law or decision in the sphere of politics adopted by the authorized body, by another legal entity (person or body), and this refusal is valid. In the political sphere, this means the power to abolish, suspend or prohibit decrees and decisions adopted by the relevant body. Such power may be partial or absolute.

After ancient Rome, the practice of the veto was not applied until the XVII century, until the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the union of the states of Lithuania and Poland. The law on the "Liberal Veto" (on a free veto, translated from Latin) was passed in the vote of the highest state body of the Seimas (Parliament). The Commonwealth was governed by the law of Nihil novi (ie the Radom Constitution), according to which the king could not issue laws without the consent of the whole gentry. The gentry of the diet were elected by the local Seim to represent the interests of their district in it. Since the state was federative in nature, where all regions had equal rights, a tradition arose to grant the possibility of prohibitions to each parliamentarian. The decision was considered adopted, when all the members of the Saeima voted for it without exception. It is believed that for the first time in Poland the right of veto was used in 1669 by a representative of Kiev, Adam Olizar.

Poland's enemies - Prussia and Russia - used this procedural moment that existed in the legislation of the Commonwealth. They bribed the gentry who used their veto power to block certain decisions, and thereby weakened the rival state. In the first half of the 18th century, this practice became routine for sessions of the Sejm, and the meetings were disrupted just before they began. This continued until May 3, 1791, when the Confederate Four-Year Seim adopted a new Constitution, which established the principle of decision-making by majority vote.

However, the very principle of recalling decrees or blocking decisions continues to live in the policies of many countries and in the decision-making procedures of interstate organizations. In some presidential-parliamentary republics, the right of the president's veto takes place.

It can be absolute (decisive): in this case, the president has the right to finally reject the law passed by the parliament. With a relative (suspensive or suspensive) veto, the president only stops the entry of the bill into force, and the parliament has the right to adopt it with a second vote by a qualified majority (two thirds of parliamentarians in each chamber in the United States and Russia). Partial or selective veto, the head of state has the right to reject articles or parts of laws and acts.

Although the Charter of the United Nations does not say a word about vetting, this right is actively used there. The five permanent members of the Security Council - Russia, Britain, the United States, France and China - have the right to veto the UN. From the outset, the application of the practice of freezing the UN decision by a country with this right led to violations of human rights. For example, the UN Security Council can not in any way adopt a resolution condemning Israel's policy of seizing the territories, and other important decisions, since a representative of countries using the right of veto uses it for the failure of this issue. This, of course, causes serious criticism from many UN member states.