Seven long years of conflict in Syria with humanitarian catastrophe as consequence.The UN and the blocked Security Council, with the inability to address the deteriorating political andhumanitarian situation in Syria, actualizes the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan's words beforethe General Assembly in 2000:"... if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should werespond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica - to gross and systematic violations of human rights thataffect every prescription of our common humanity?"From the Cold War until today, the UN system has failed to live up to the high expectations basedon the fundamental principles of the Charter and international law, which can be attributed to theimbalance between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as within the Councilbetween the five permanent members with individual veto and the chosen six.The question is not new. The tension in power balance and decision-making in the UN has existedsince the organization's formation. Interestingly in this context, the resolution Uniting for Peace,which was adopted in 1950, has as its starting point the unrestricted power of veto in relation to theGeneral Assembly's responsibility for peace and security.The resolutions Responsibility to Protect and Uniting for Peace become important and necessaryfor the understanding of the conflict in Syria, but also for a reform work motivated by humanitarianlaw. The meaning of the concepts of sovereignty, veto and erga omnes is therefore decisive in thebalance between de lege lata and de lege ferenda, with can be clarified by de lege interpretata.This essay will try to make the connection between these concepts more intelligible.