Ten Major Violations of UN Resolutions by the United States

The United States  a founding UN member and permanent Security Council (UNSC) veto
power – has repeatedly clashed with UN decisions or mandates. Over decades it has taken
unilateral actions contrary to Security Council or General Assembly resolutions, drawing
international criticism. This article examines ten well‑documented cases: military
interventions without UN authority, unilateral sanctions flouting international consensus, US
vetoes of Council measures (often defending allies), and support for Israeli actions in
defiance of UN mandates. Each case presents the historical context, relevant UN
resolutions, legal analysis under international law, and India’s response (via voting or
statements). The overall aim is to offer a balanced, journalistically–oriented analysis,
grounded in UN or credible sources.

1. Iraq War (2003) – Ignoring UN Security Council
Authorization

In March 2003 the US led a “coalition of the willing” in an invasion of Iraq. This action lacked
new UN Security Council authorization. The Council’s Resolution 1441 (Nov 2002) had
found Iraq in material breach of disarmament obligations but did not explicitly authorize
force. Washington interpreted earlier resolutions (678/687 of 1990‑91) as authorizing action
if Iraq re‑armed, but most international lawyers disagreed – they saw the invasion as a
breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (prohibiting force) and UN norms. In his 2003
address, President Bush invoked 1441 but acknowledged the lack of a new vote. The UN
Secretary‑General Kofi Annan later called the war illegal under international law.
From a legal standpoint, without Security Council consent or clear self-defense necessity,
the attack violated the UN Charter. Critics note that after UN weapons inspectors (led by
Hans Blix) found no evidence of resumed WMD programs, diplomatic options were not
exhausted. The war led to massive civilian casualties and regional destabilization, prompting
debate over legal responsibility and post‑war reconstruction obligations.
India strongly opposed the 2003 invasion. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had earlier
emphasized multilateralism, and the Indian Parliament passed a unanimous resolution
“deplor[ing] the military action by the coalition forces led by the USA against a sovereign
Iraq”. New Delhi abstained on related Security Council votes and refused to send troops.
India’s stance reflected its long‑standing policy against unilateral use of force without UN
endorsement.

2. US Embargo on Cuba – Defying Annual UN General
Assembly Resolutions

Since the early 1960s the US has imposed a strict economic, commercial and financial
embargo on Cuba. Every year the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly called for
lifting this “blockade” (e.g. Resolution A/RES/79/7 in 2024). These GA resolutions reiterate
that such unilateral sanctions violate international trade principles and Cuba’s sovereignty.
The embargo – codified by laws like the Helms–Burton Act – penalizes foreign firms trading
with Cuba, drawing global condemnation. The US has ignored GA demands, insisting the
embargo is its sovereign policy to “advance democracy” in Cuba (as US officials put it).
Internationally, the embargo is seen as contrary to the UN Charter and free‑trade norms.
Most world leaders argue it harms ordinary Cubans and isolates the country. India has
consistently supported UN resolutions against the embargo. As India’s UN first secretary
noted in 2024, India “stands in solidarity” with the General Assembly’s rejection of domestic
laws with “extraterritorial impact” (an allusion to US sanctions). In the 2024 vote, 187
countries backed ending the embargo, with only the US and Israel opposing. India’s support
for Cuba’s resolution reflects its ties to Latin America and belief in multilateral trade rules,
even as it maintains relations with the US.

3. Israeli Settlements – US Veto of Security Council
Resolution (2011)

In February 2011 the Security Council considered a draft resolution condemning all Israeli
settlements in occupied Palestinian territory as illegal. Fourteen members voted in favor, but
the US cast the sole “no” vote, vetoing the measure. The veto blocked what the UN and
International Court of Justice call a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (prohibiting
transfer of an occupier’s civilian population to occupied land). US Ambassador Susan Rice
argued a negotiated solution was needed, but critics noted the UN’s longstanding view that
settlements flout international law.
By its veto, the US defied the prevailing international position on human rights and
occupation. The UNSC press release recorded that 14 states, including many of America’s
European allies and non‑aligned members, supported the text. The resolution would have
reaffirmed UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) and other mandates calling for no territorial gain by
force. After the veto, the US continued selling arms to Israel, further straining consensus.
India joined 13 co‑sponsors of the draft and co‑sponsored it in New York. Indian
Ambassador Manjeev Singh Puri told the Council, “we had co‑sponsored and voted in
favour” of the resolution. New Delhi’s support aligned with its traditional backing for
Palestinian rights at the UN. In private diplomacy, India also urged peace talks, but it did not
shield Israel from UN critiques on settlements.

4. US Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital
(2017) – UN General Assembly Rebuke

In December 2017 President Trump unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and
announced a US embassy move. This was widely seen as violating UN resolutions that the
city’s status be decided by negotiations (e.g. UNSC Resolution 478 condemning Israel’s

1980 annexation of East Jerusalem). In response, the UN General Assembly adopted
resolution ES‑10/19 by an overwhelming 128–9 vote on Dec 21, 2017. The GA declared
the US decision “null and void” and called on member states not to establish diplomatic
missions in Jerusalem. Countries including India, Egypt, and major EU states voted for the
resolution. The US and Israel were among only nine “no” votes.
International lawyers note that changing status unilaterally contravened the 1947 UN
partition plan and UNSC 242 (calling for negotiated peace). The GA vote was political but
based on broad international law consensus. India firmly opposed the US move: it “voted in
favor of the UNGA resolution rejecting U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,”
continuing its traditional support for multilateral status‑quo. Indian diplomats pointed out that
only a negotiated final settlement could determine Jerusalem’s fate. Washington dismissed
the GA as symbolic, but the vote highlighted its isolation and India’s alignment with most
countries on the issue.

5. US Recognition of Golan Heights as Israeli Territory
(2019) – Flouting UN Mandates

In March 2019 the Trump administration announced US recognition of Israeli sovereignty
over the occupied Golan Heights – territory Syria captured in 1967. This directly violated UN
Security Council Resolution 497 (1981), which declared Israel’s annexation of the Golan
“null and void” under international law. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres reminded
nations that only the Security Council can amend these mandates. The UN General
Assembly has also repeatedly affirmed Syria’s territorial integrity in the Golan (e.g.
resolutions A/RES/70/88 etc). In November 2023 the UNGA again adopted a resolution demanding Israel withdraw from
the Golan, with 91 in favor and only 8 against (including the US and UK). Notably, India
voted in favor of the GA resolution, aligning with Russia, China and others. The November
2023 text reiterated SC 242’s call for withdrawal from all 1967‑occupied lands. By
recognizing the Golan under Israel, the US acted contrary to these UN mandates. The move
was condemned as a breach of the UN Charter’s principle of territorial sovereignty. Syrian
and Arab leaders lodged formal protests at the UN, but Washington dismissed UN protests,
citing “strategic alliance” with Israel.

India’s representative abstained on any related UN action after 2019, but in the 2023 GA
vote India firmly endorsed Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan. This reflects India’s view of UN
resolutions: even as it forges closer ties with Israel, New Delhi upheld the principle that
changes to borders require UN approval or bilateral agreement. In other words, India backed
the international consensus on the Golan rather than the US’s unilateral policy shift.

6. Gaza Ceasefire (2023) – US Vetoes Security Council
Resolution

During the Israel‑Hamas war of late 2023, the UN Security Council drafted a resolution
calling for an “immediate, sustained humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza. The resolution was

sponsored by the UAE and France. In December 2023, the United States vetoed the
measure, blocking the Council from demanding a ceasefire. This veto came amid mounting
global outrage over civilian casualties in Gaza. UN Secretary-General Guterres and
humanitarian agencies had repeatedly urged the Council to act; the draft was broadly
supported by members.

From an international law standpoint, critics noted the US was essentially ignoring calls for
humanitarian protection. The resolution did not question Israel’s right to defense against
terrorism, but simply insisted on urgent ceasefire “in Gaza to allow delivery of critical aid”. By
vetoing it, the US ran counter to the UN Charter’s principles on civilian protection (e.g. UNSC
Resolution 2286 on medical neutrality) and to Security Council’s own tradition of
condemning large-scale civilian harm. Observers noted that while the veto is legal
procedure, it signaled that US policy on Israel security trumped UN demands for urgent
humanitarian relief.

India’s U.N. delegation welcomed the broader push for ceasefire. Though India was not on
the Council, its UN Ambassador noted support for a negotiated pause. In fact, on 13 Dec
2023 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a ceasefire resolution (149‑9‑17),
and India voted in favor (having abstained on an earlier draft). New Delhi’s position was that
it “welcomed unity of international community” on addressing the crisis. Thus India implicitly
criticized the US veto by joining the global majority in the Assembly for ceasefire. This
contrasted sharply with Washington’s lone “no” on the Council draft, underlining India’s more
independent stance in UN diplomacy.

7. Invasion of Grenada (1983) – Defying UN General
Assembly Resolution 38/7

In October 1983 the US invaded the Caribbean island of Grenada in “Operation Urgent
Fury.” The invasion was condemned by a special UN General Assembly session. GA
Resolution 38/7 (2 Nov 1983) “deeply deplores the armed intervention in Grenada,
which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law”. The Assembly demanded
immediate withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces, called for free elections, and reaffirmed
Grenada’s sovereignty. The vote was 108 in favor, 9 against (mostly small US allies), with 27
abstentions.

From a legal perspective, UNGA 38/7 reaffirmed Article 2(4) of the Charter – outlawing force
against sovereignty – and cited the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention.
Washington argued it intervened at request of neighboring Caribbean leaders and to
“rescue” US medical students, but UN diplomats and global media pointed out that no UN
body had authorized force. The Assembly’s call for troop withdrawal was ignored, and the
US maintained a military presence for some time.
India, as a non-aligned country sensitive to colonial era interventions, supported the UN
condemnation. (Although India was not on the 1983 Security Council, it regularly backed
such resolutions in the General Assembly.) In New Delhi’s view, the intervention set a
dangerous precedent of big‑power meddling in a small state. In later forums India used
Grenada to illustrate how unilateral interventions could undermine the UN Charter. The incident reinforced India’s commitment to multilateral dispute resolution and respect for sovereignty – positions it would carry to UN votes on later conflicts.

8. Invasion of Panama (1989) – UN General Assembly
Censure and Security Council Veto

In December 1989 the US launched “Operation Just Cause” to topple Panamanian ruler
Manuel Noriega. The UN General Assembly reacted strongly. By a vote of 75–20 (with 40
abstentions) on 29 Dec 1989, GA Resolution 44/240 “strongly deplores” the US invasion
as a “flagrant violation of international law”. The resolution demanded withdrawal of US
troops and respect for Panamanian sovereignty. Notably, India, like much of the global
South, voted in favor of condemning the invasion (as did most non-aligned and Latin
American states).

Simultaneously, a draft Security Council resolution calling for immediate US withdrawal was
vetoed by the United States (joined by the UK and France). Thus, the Council could not even
debate a censure. The US justified its action as protecting US citizens and democracy, but
UN officials countered that the UN Charter requires Security Council approval for such force.
The Panama episode highlighted US defiance of UN will. By ignoring the GA’s emphatic vote
and exercising its veto in the Council, Washington signaled that its strategic interests (in the
Canal and drugs policy) overrode UN procedures. The aftermath saw thousands of civilian
deaths and damaged Panamanian infrastructure; some sued the US in international courts
for property losses. India condemned the invasion in principle, viewing it as another example
of great‑power overreach. In UN voting records, India had abstained on early resolutions
about Panama (reflecting NAM caution), but publicly supported the call for Panamanian
self‑determination and speedy elections after Noriega’s ouster.

9. UN Sanctions on Iran (2015–2020) – The “Snapback”
Dispute

In 2015 the UNSC unanimously endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
on Iran’s nuclear program in Resolution 2231. That resolution lifted most prior UN sanctions
on Iran, in exchange for strict nuclear curbs. In 2018 the US withdrew from the deal and re-
imposed its own “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. In 2020 Washington attempted to
“snap back” UN sanctions under 2231 by insisting it was still a participant. However, other
UNSC members argued the US had forfeited this right by quitting the deal. The US gave
notice to the UN of reimposing UN sanctions, but the Council refused to act, effectively
dismissing the US demand as illegal. Indeed, the UN Security Council President stated it
was “not in position to take further action” on the US request.
International legal experts noted that allowing a former participant to snap back sanctions
would violate 2231’s terms. The US “maximalist” approach contradicted the Council’s
collective decision. Meanwhile, Iran ramped up limited nuclear activities in protest. The
stalemate meant no new UN penalties fell on Iran, but also highlighted a rift in
multilateralism.

India, which relied on Iranian oil and invested in its rail link, was displeased by US
unilateralism. New Delhi continued limited oil imports from Iran (with occasional waivers) and
insisted the JCPOA terms should be preserved. India’s foreign ministry publicly backed
diplomatic solutions. At the UN, Indian diplomats spoke about the need to respect UNSC
agreements: for example, India’s representative at the UN in 2020 noted that effective
multilateralism required honoring the Council’s resolutions (implicitly referencing 2231). In
short, India saw the US “snapback” bid as unhelpful to UN unity and counter to the JCPOA’s
spirit.

10. US Veto Power – Shielding Allies and Blocking
Accountability

Beyond specific cases above, the US has repeatedly used its UNSC veto to block action
contrary to its interests or those of allies, sometimes undermining international law aims. The
veto itself is legal under the Charter, but critics argue it has been wielded in ways that defy
the UN’s collective will. For example, as noted, the US vetoed the 2011 settlements
resolution and similarly vetoed (or threatened to veto) resolutions critical of Israel on other
occasions (such as ceasefire calls). The US has often been the sole or one of few “no” votes
on resolutions against Israeli actions (as in Jerusalem/Golan votes), effectively overriding the
Council or GA majority. Outside the Israel context, the US has also vetoed or abstained on other issues. For
instance, in December 2018 the US vetoed a draft condemning the killing of Palestinians in
Gaza, and in 2011 it vetoed a resolution imposing sanctions on Syrian government officials
for human-rights abuses. Each veto has been justified by US delegates as protecting
national interest or due-process, but they frequently frustrated UN efforts at accountability.

India’s view has been to call for responsible use of veto and respect for Council unity. Indian
officials have noted that veto use should not hinder the UNSC’s primary responsibility for
peace and security. While India does not veto itself, it has spoken for reform (more
members, less frequent vetoes) at the UN. In debates India has cited examples like those
above to argue that overuse of the veto erodes the UN’s legitimacy a stance consistent
with its broader push for UN reform and a more multipolar world order.

Outlook: US–UN Relations and India in a Changing World

These ten cases illustrate a pattern of “American exceptionalism” – where the US acts
outside or above UN mandates. The cumulative effect has been growing tension between
the US and the UN multilateral framework. In recent years, Washington’s commitment to UN
agencies has been uneven (e.g. withdrawing from UNESCO and criticizing UNHRC), and it
has at times proposed paying private companies or partners rather than UN bodies (as in
Afghanistan and Syria). This has strained US credibility in the UN system. At the same time, global power dynamics are shifting. The US remains dominant in defense and economy, but rising powers like China and India are reshaping priorities. India, for its part, champions a rules‑based international order and often sides with multilateral consensus on issues like climate, trade, and UN charters. But India also values strategic ties with the US (especially against terrorism and regional threats). Thus India’s approach has been pragmatic: it supports UN resolutions it sees as legal and fair (ending embargoes,
protecting sovereignty) but also cultivates bilateral relations (e.g. recent defense deals with
Washington and closer Israel ties). Looking ahead, the US–UN relationship may become more transactional. US leaders have signaled they will assert national prerogatives over multilateral wishes. How the UN adapts
through reform or new coalitions – is an open question. In this landscape, India is emerging
as a voice of the “Global South,” advocating reform of the Security Council (long calling for
more permanent seats and restrained veto use) and pushing for multilateral solutions. India
often interprets US defiance of UN norms as a cautionary sign: it underscores India’s own
insistence on dialogue within international law, while it also recognises the practical influence
of great‑power politics at the UN.

In sum, these ten cases reflect not only legal disputes but also geopolitical struggles. The
US has on many occasions stepped outside UN resolutions it found constraining, whether
for security, ideological, or diplomatic reasons. Each incident has provoked debate over the
balance between sovereignty, international law, and power. As global authority becomes
more diffuse, the US–UN relationship will likely remain complex, with India and other nations
watching closely — ready to hold the US accountable to international commitments, even as
they navigate shifting alliances in the 21st century.