US President Ronald Reagan signing a veto of a bill.

A veto is a legal power to unilaterally stop an official action. In the most typical case, a president or monarch vetoes a bill to stop it from becoming law. In many countries, veto powers are established in the country's constitution. Veto powers are also found at other levels of government, such as in state, provincial or local government, and in international bodies.

Some vetoes can be overcome, often by a supermajority vote: in the United States, a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate can override a presidential veto.[1] Some vetoes, however, are absolute and cannot be overridden. For example, in the United Nations Security Council, the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have an absolute veto over any Security Council resolution.

In many cases, the veto power can only be used to prevent changes to the status quo. But some veto powers also include the ability to make or propose changes. For example, the Indian president can use an amendatory veto to propose amendments to vetoed bills.

The executive power to veto legislation is one of the main tools that the executive has in the legislative process, along with the proposal power.[2] It is most commonly found in presidential and semi-presidential systems.[3] In parliamentary systems, the head of state often has either a weak veto power or none at all.[4] But while some political systems do not contain a formal veto power, all political systems contain veto players, people or groups who can use social and political power to prevent policy change.[5]

The word "veto" comes from the Latin for "I forbid". The concept of a veto originated with the Roman offices of consul and tribune of the plebs. There were two consuls every year; either consul could block military or civil action by the other. The tribunes had the power to unilaterally block any action by a Roman magistrate or the decrees passed by the Roman Senate.[6]


Roman veto

Tiberius Gracchus, Roman tribune

The institution of the veto, known to the Romans as the intercessio, was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the mandamus interests of the plebeians (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the patricians, who dominated the Senate. A tribune's veto did not prevent the senate from passing a bill but meant that it was denied the force of law. The tribunes could also use the veto to prevent a bill from being brought before the plebeian assembly. The consuls also had the power of veto, as decision-making generally required the assent of both consuls. If they disagreed, either could invoke the intercessio to block the action of the other. The veto was an essential component of the Roman conception of power being wielded not only to manage state affairs but to moderate and restrict the power of the state's high officials and institutions.[6]

A notable use of the Roman veto occurred in the Gracchan land reform, which was initially spearheaded by the tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC. When Gracchus' fellow tribune Marcus Octavius vetoed the reform, the Assembly voted to remove him on the theory that a tribune must represent the interests of the plebeians. Later, senators outraged by the reform murdered Gracchus and several supporters, setting off a period of internal political violence in Rome.[7]

Liberum veto

Main article: Liberum veto

In the constitution of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th centuries, all bills had to pass the Sejm or "Seimas" (parliament) by unanimous consent, and if any legislator invoked the liberum veto, this not only vetoed that bill but also all previous legislation passed during the session, and dissolved the legislative session itself. The concept originated in the idea of "Polish democracy" as any Pole of noble extraction was considered as good as any other, no matter how low or high his material condition might be. The more and more frequent use of this veto power paralyzed the power of the legislature and, combined with a string of weak figurehead kings, led ultimately to the partitioning and the dissolution of the Polish state in the late 18th century.

Emergence of modern vetoes

William III of England granting royal assent to the Toleration Act 1688.

The modern executive veto derives from the European institution of royal assent, in which the monarch's consent was required for bills to become law. This in turn had evolved from earlier royal systems in which laws were simply issued by the monarch, as was the case for example in England until the reign of Edward III in the 14th century.[8] In England itself, the power of the monarch to deny royal assent was not used after 1708, but it was used extensively in the British colonies. The heavy use of this power was mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776.[9]

Following the French Revolution in 1789, the royal veto was hotly debated, and hundreds of proposals were put forward for different versions of the royal veto, as either absolute, suspensive, or nonexistent.[10] With the adoption of the French Constitution of 1791, King Louis XVI lost his absolute veto and acquired the power to issue a suspensive veto that could be overridden by a majority vote in two successive sessions of the Legislative Assembly, which would take four to six years.[11] With the abolition of the monarchy in 1792, the question of the French royal veto became moot.[11]

The presidential veto was conceived in by republicans in the 18th and 19th centuries as a counter-majoritarian tool, limiting the power of a legislative majority.[12] Some republican thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, however, argued for eliminating the veto power entirely as a relic of monarchy.[13] To avoid giving the president too much power, most early presidential vetoes, such as the veto power in the United States, were qualified vetoes that the legislature could override.[13] But this was not always the case: the Chilean constitution of 1833, for example, gave that country's president an absolute veto.[13]


Most modern vetoes are intended as a check on the power of the government, or a branch of government, most commonly the legislative branch. Thus, in governments with a separation of powers, vetoes may be classified by the branch of government that enacts them: an executive veto, legislative veto, or judicial veto.

Other types of veto power, however, have safeguarded other interests. The denial of royal assent by governors in the British colonies, which continued well after the practice had ended in Britain itself, served as a check by one level of government against another.[8] Vetoes may also be used to safeguard the interests of particular groups within a country. The veto power of the ancient Roman tribunes protected the interests of one social class (the plebeians) against another (the patricians).[14] In the transition from apartheid, a "white veto" to protect the interests of white South Africans was proposed but not adopted.[15] More recently, Indigenous vetoes over industrial projects on Indigenous land have been proposed following the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires the "free, prior and informed consent" of Indigenous communities to development or resource extraction projects on their land. However, many governments have been reluctant to allow such a veto.[16]

Vetoes may be classified by whether the vetoed body can override them, and if so, how. An absolute veto cannot be overridden at all. A qualified veto can be overridden by a supermajority, such as two-thirds or three-fifths. A suspensory veto, also called a suspensive veto, can be overridden by a simple majority, and thus serves only to delay the law from coming into force.[17]

Types of executive vetoes

US President Bill Clinton signing cancellation letters related to his line-Item vetoes for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

A package veto, also called a "block veto" or "full veto", vetoes a legislative act as a whole. A partial veto, also called a line item veto, allows the executive to object only to some specific part of the law while allowing the rest to stand. An executive with a partial veto has a stronger negotiating position than an executive with only a package veto power.[3] An amendatory veto or amendatory observation returns legislation to the legislature with proposed amendments, which the legislature may either adopt or override. The effect of legislative inaction may vary: in some systems, if the legislature does nothing, the vetoed bill fails, while in others, the vetoed bill becomes law. Because the amendatory veto gives the executive a stronger role in the legislative process, it is often seen as a marker of a particularly strong veto power.

Some veto powers are limited to budgetary matters (as with line-item vetoes in some US states, or the financial veto in New Zealand).[18] Other veto powers (such as in Finland) apply only to non-budgetary matters; some (such as in South Africa) apply only to constitutional matters. A veto power that is not limited in this way is known as a "policy veto".[3]

One type of budgetary veto, the reduction veto, which is found in several US states, gives the executive the authority to reduce budgetary appropriations that the legislature has made.[18] When an executive is given multiple different veto powers, the procedures for overriding them may differ. For example, in the US state of Illinois, if the legislature takes no action on a reduction veto, the reduction simply becomes law, while if the legislature takes no action on an amendatory veto, the bill dies.[19]

A pocket veto is a veto that takes effect simply by the executive or head of state taking no action. In the United States, the pocket veto can only be exercised near the end of a legislative session; if the deadline for presidential action passes during the legislative session, the bill will simply become law.[20] The legislature cannot override a pocket veto.[2]

Some veto powers are limited in their subject matter. A constitutional veto only allows the executive to veto bills that are unconstitutional; in contrast, a "policy veto" can be used wherever the executive disagrees with the bill on policy grounds.[3] Presidents with constitutional vetoes include those of Benin and South Africa.

Legislative veto

Main article: Legislative veto

A legislative veto is a veto power exercised by a legislative body. It may be a veto exercised by the legislature against an action of the executive branch, as in the case of the legislative veto in the United States, which is found in 28 US states.[21] It may also be a veto power exercised by one chamber of a bicameral legislature against another, such as was formerly held by members of the Senate of Fiji appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs.[22]

Veto over candidates

In certain political systems, a particular body is able to exercise a veto over candidates for an elected office. This type of veto may also be referred to by the broader term "vetting".

Historically, certain European Catholic monarchs were able to veto candidates for the papacy, a power known as the jus exclusivae. This power was used for the last time in 1903 by Franz Joseph I of Austria.[23]

In Iran, the Guardian Council has the power to approve or disapprove candidates, in addition to its veto power over legislation.

In China, following a pro-democracy landslide in the 2019 Hong Kong local elections, in 2021 the National People's Congress approved a law that gave the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee, appointed by the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, the power to veto candidates for the Hong Kong Legislative Council.[24]

Balance of powers

Main article: Balance of powers

In presidential and semi-presidential systems, the veto is a legislative power of the presidency, because it involves the president in the process of making law. In contrast to proactive powers such as the ability to introduce legislation, the veto is a reactive power, because the president cannot veto a bill until the legislature has passed it.[25]

Executive veto powers are often ranked as comparatively "strong" or "weak". A veto power may be considered stronger or weaker depending on its scope, the time limits for exercising it and requirements for the vetoed body to override it. In general, the greater the majority required for an override, the stronger the veto.[3]

Partial vetoes are less vulnerable to override than package vetoes,[26] and political scientists who have studied the matter have generally considered partial vetoes to give the executive greater power than package vetoes.[27] However, empirical studies of the line-item veto in US state government have not found any consistent effect on the executive's ability to advance its agenda.[28] Amendatory vetoes give greater power to the executive than deletional vetoes, because they give the executive the power to move policy closer to its own preferred state than would otherwise be possible.[29] But even a suspensory package veto that can be overridden by a simple majority can be effective in stopping or modifying legislation. For example, in Estonia in 1993, president Lennart Meri was able to successfully obtain amendments to the proposed Law on Aliens after issuing a suspensory veto of the bill and proposing amendments based on expert opinions on European law.[26]


United Nations Security Council meeting room.

Globally, the executive veto over legislation is characteristic of presidential and semi-presidential systems, with stronger veto powers generally being associated with stronger presidential powers overall.[3] In parliamentary systems, the veto power of the head of state is typically weak or nonexistent.[4] In particular, in Westminster systems and most constitutional monarchies, the power to veto legislation by withholding royal assent is a rarely used reserve power of the monarch. In practice, the Crown follows the convention of exercising its prerogative on the advice of parliament.

International bodies




The Americas





European countries in which the executive or head of state does not have a veto power include Slovenia and Luxembourg, where the power to withhold royal assent was abolished in 2008.[90] Countries that have some form of veto power include the following:



Veto theories

In political science, the broader power of people and groups to prevent change is sometimes analyzed through the frameworks of veto points and veto players. Veto players are actors who can potentially exercise some sort of veto over a change in government policy.[5] Veto points are the institutional opportunities that give these actors the ability to veto.[5] The theory of veto points was first developed by Ellen M. Immergut in 1990, in a comparative case study of healthcare reform in different political systems.[138] Breaking with earlier scholarship, Immergut argued that "we have veto points within political systems and not veto groups within societies."[139]

Veto player analysis draws on game theory. George Tsebelis first developed it in 1995 and set it forth in detail in 2002 Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work.[140] A veto player is a political actor who has the ability to stop a change from the status quo.[141] There are institutional veto players, whose consent is required by constitution or statute; for example, in US federal legislation, the veto players are the House, Senate and presidency.[142] There are also partisan veto players, which are groups that can block policy change from inside an institutional veto player.[143] In a coalition government the partisan veto players are typically the members of the governing coalition.[143][144]

According to Tsebelis' veto player theorem, policy change becomes harder the more veto players there are, the greater the ideological distance between them, and the greater their internal coherence.[141] For example, Italy and the United States have stable policies because they have many veto players, while Greece and the United Kingdom have unstable policies because they have few veto players.[145]

While the veto player and veto point approaches complement one another, the veto players framework has become dominant in the study of policy change.[146] Scholarship on rational choice theory has favored the veto player approach because the veto point framework does not address why political actors decide to use a veto point.[5] In addition, because veto player analysis can apply to any political system, it provides a way of comparing very different political systems, such as presidential and parliamentary systems.[5] Veto player analyses can also incorporate people and groups that have de facto power to prevent policy change, even if they do not have the legal power to do so.[147]

Some literature distinguishes cooperative veto points (within institutions) and competitive veto points (between institutions), theorizing competitive veto points contribute to obstructionism.[148] Some literature disagrees with the claim of veto player theory that multiparty governments are likely to be gridlocked.[148]

See also

Works cited

Constitutions cited


  1. ^ Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
  2. ^ a b Palanza & Sin 2020, p. 367.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h "4. System of government". Constitutions in OECD Countries: A Comparative Study : Background Report in the Context of Chile's Constitutional Process. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
  4. ^ a b Bulmer 2017, p. 5.
  5. ^ a b c d e Oppermann & Brummer 2017, p. 3.
  6. ^ a b Spitzer, Robert J. (2000). The presidential veto: touchstone of the American presidency. SUNY Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-88706-802-7.
  7. ^ Capogrossi Colognesi, Luigi (2014). "Tiberius Gracchus and the distribution of the ager publicus". Law and Power in the Making of the Roman Commonwealth. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316061923.
  8. ^ a b Watson 1987, p. 403.
  9. ^ Watson 1987, p. 404.
  10. ^ Blackman, Robert (2004). "What was "Absolute" about the "Absolute veto"? Ideas of National Sovereignty and Royal Power in September 1789". Journal of the Western Society for French History. 32. hdl:2027/spo.0642292.0032.008.
  11. ^ a b Jones, Colin (2014). The Longman Companion to the French Revolution. Routledge. p. 67. ISBN 9781317870807.
  12. ^ Bulmer 2017, pp. 12–13.
  13. ^ a b c Bulmer 2017, p. 13.
  14. ^ Watson 1987, p. 402.
  15. ^ Joe Contreras (28 November 1993). "Apartheid On The Ash Heap". Newsweek. Retrieved 17 June 2022.
  16. ^ Shaw, Jessie (2017). "Indigenous Veto Power in Bolivia". Peace Review. 29 (2): 231–238. doi:10.1080/10402659.2017.1308737. S2CID 149072601.
  17. ^ Garner, Bryan, ed. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.). p. 4841.
  18. ^ a b NCSL 1998, p. 6-29.
  19. ^ "Legislative Glossary". Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  20. ^ a b Watson 1987, p. 407.
  21. ^ "Separation of Powers: Legislative Oversight". National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  22. ^ Ghai, Yash; Cottrell, Jill (2007). "A tale of three constitutions: Ethnicity and politics in Fiji". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 5 (4): 639–669. doi:10.1093/icon/mom030.
  23. ^ Tobin, Greg (2009). Selecting the Pope: Uncovering the Mysteries of Papal Elections. Sterling Publishing Company. p. 35. ISBN 9781402729546.
  24. ^ Leung, Christy (14 July 2021). "Hong Kong electoral changes: powerful vetting committee that will review hopefuls in coming polls holds first meeting". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
  25. ^ Croissant 2003, p. 72.
  26. ^ a b Metcalf, Lee Kendall (2000). "Measuring Presidential Power". Comparative Political Studies. 33 (5): 670. doi:10.1177/0010414000033005004. S2CID 154874901.
  27. ^ Palanza & Sin 2020, p. 375.
  28. ^ Palanza & Sin 2020, p. 374.
  29. ^ Palanza & Sin 2020, p. 382.
  30. ^ "Charter of the United Nations: Chapter V — The Security Council: Article 27". Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs. United Nations. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  31. ^ a b "Voting System". United Nations Security Council. Retrieved 15 June 2022. All five permanent members have exercised the right of veto at one time or another. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes.
  32. ^ "Twenty-Third Meeting" (PDF). United Nations. 16 February 1946. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  33. ^ Krassen Nikolov (9 June 2022). "Bulgaria sets 3 conditions for lifting North Macedonia veto". Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  34. ^ Slapin, Jonathan B. (2011). "Exit Threats, Veto Rights, and Integration". Veto Power: Institutional Design in the European Union. University of Michigan Press. p. 123. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1qv5nfq. ISBN 9780472117932. JSTOR j.ctt1qv5nfq.
  35. ^ "Article 290". EUR-Lex. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  36. ^ Schütze, Robert (September 2011). "'Delegated' Legislation in the (new) European Union: A Constitutional Analysis". The Modern Law Review. 74 (5): 661–693. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00866.x. JSTOR 41302774. S2CID 219376667.
  37. ^ a b Kaeding, Michael K.; Stack, Kevin M. (25 October 2016). "A dearth of legislative vetoes: Why the Council and Parliament have been reluctant to veto Commission legislation". Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  38. ^ a b Bulmer 2017, p. 19.
  39. ^ a b c Article 57 of the Constitution of Benin (1990)
  40. ^ Bulmer 2017, p. 33.
  41. ^ a b Constitutional Court of Benin (4 December 2008). "DCC08-171" (PDF) (in French). Retrieved 14 June 2022.
  42. ^ a b Article 19 of the Constitution of Cameroon (2008)
  43. ^ Article 31 of the Constitution of Cameroon (2008)
  44. ^ Bulmer 2017, p. 8.
  45. ^ Pierre de Vos (20 November 2019). "No Sir, the president does not have the power to veto the Copyright Bill". Retrieved 13 June 2022.
  46. ^ a b Article 79 of the Constitution of South Africa (2012)
  47. ^ a b c Article 91 of the Constitution of Uganda (2017)
  48. ^ "KADAGA: Income Tax Amendment Bill is now law". The Independent. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
  49. ^ Titriku, Agnes. "Interaction Between MPs and Civil Society Is Needed". In R. Stapenhurst; et al. (eds.). Anti-Corruption Evidence, Studies in Public Choice 34. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-14140-0_5. S2CID 198750839.
  50. ^ Bulmer 2017, p. 31.
  51. ^ "The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) (N.A.B. 17, 2015)" (PDF). Parliament of Zambia. 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 January 2016.
  52. ^ Article 66 of the Constitution of Zambia (2016)
  53. ^ "Entenda a tramitação do veto" [Understand the processing of a veto]. National Congress of Brazil. Accessed 15 October 2022.
  54. ^ Article 53 of the Constitution of Canada (1867)
  55. ^ Jackson, Michael. "Bastedo, Frank Lindsay (1886–1973)". Encyclopedia of Saskatachewan. Archived 24 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.
  56. ^ a b c Article 102 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic (2015)
  57. ^ a b c Tsebelis & Alemán 2005, p. 406.
  58. ^ Basabe-Serrano, Santiago; Huertas-Hernández, Sergio (2020). "Legislative override and particularistic bills in unstable democracies: Ecuador in comparative perspective". The Journal of Legislative Studies. 27 (2): 15. doi:10.1080/13572334.2020.1810902. S2CID 224949744.
  59. ^ Basabe-Serrano 2020, pp. 6–7.
  60. ^ a b c d Tsebelis & Alemán 2005, p. 405.
  61. ^ Tsebelis & Alemán 2005, pp. 405, 420.
  62. ^ Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States (1789)
  63. ^ a b National Conference of State Legislatures. "Separation of Powers – Executive Veto Powers". Retrieved 11 June 2022. Every state constitution empowers the governor to veto an entire bill passed by the legislature.
  64. ^ "The Veto Process" (PDF). Inside the Legislative Process. National Conference of State Legislatures. 1998. pp. 6–31. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 January 2010.
  65. ^ China Internet Information Center. "China Questions and Answers --". Retrieved 11 June 2022. Administrative regulations shall not contravene laws adopted by the NPC, local regulations shall not contravene laws and administrative regulations, and the NPC has the power to annul administrative regulations and local regulations that contravene the laws it has made.
  66. ^ a b c Article 46 of the Constitution of Georgia (country) (2018)
  67. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, p. 1179.
  68. ^ Article 111 of the Constitution of India
  69. ^ Sharma, B.k. (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Learning Pvt. Ltd. p. 145. ISBN 978-81-203-3246-1.
  70. ^ Gupta, V. P. (26 August 2002). "The President's role". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 16 June 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
  71. ^ Butt, Simon; Lindsey, Tim (2008). "Economic Reform when the Constitution Matters: Indonesia's Constitutional Court and Article 33". Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies. 44 (2): 239–262. doi:10.1080/00074910802169004. S2CID 154149905.
  72. ^ a b Setiawan, Ken M.P; Tomsa, Dirk (2022). Politics in Contemporary Indonesia: Institutional Change, Policy Challenges and Democratic Decline. Routledge. ISBN 9780429860935.
  73. ^ Article 22 of the Constitution of Indonesia (2022)
  74. ^ Sri Wiyanti (10 October 2014). "Adakah hak veto presiden dalam sistem ketatanegaraan?". (in Indonesian). Retrieved 13 June 2022.
  75. ^ a b "The Guardian Council". Iran Social Science Data Portal. Retrieved 11 June 2022. The Guardian Council has three constitutional mandates: a) it has veto power over legislation passed by the parliament (Majles);
  76. ^ Article 94, 96 of the Constitution of Iran (1989)
  77. ^ Article 7 of the Constitution of Japan (1947)
  78. ^ Herzog, Peter J. (1951). "Political Theories in the Japanese Constitution". Monumenta Nipponica. 7 (1/2): 11. doi:10.2307/2382947. JSTOR 2382947. There is no veto power against the legislature-unless at some future time the Emperor's "non-governmental" ceremonial functions enumerated in Article 7 were construed as discretionary.
  79. ^ Benjamin, Seth B.; Grant, Jason (29 March 2022). "Japan: Local Autonomy Is a Central Tenet to Good Governance". Retrieved 21 June 2022.
  80. ^ Shimizutani, Satoshi (2010). "Local Government in Japan: New Directions in Governance toward Citizens' Autonomy". Asia-Pacific Review. 17 (2): 114. doi:10.1080/13439006.2010.531115. S2CID 154999192.
  81. ^ Article 53, Section 2 of the Constitution of South Korea (1987)
  82. ^ Article 53, Section 3 of the Constitution of South Korea (1987)
  83. ^ Article 53, Section 4 of the Constitution of South Korea (1987)
  84. ^ Young Whan Kihl (2015). Transforming Korean Politics: Democracy, Reform, and Culture. Routledge. p. 305. ISBN 9781317453321.
  85. ^ a b Rose-Ackerman, Susan; Desierto, Diane A.; Volosin, Natalia (2011). "Hyper-Presidentialism: Separation of Powers without Checks and Balances in Argentina and Philippines". Berkeley Journal of International Law. 29: 282.
  86. ^ Article VI, Section 27 of the Constitution of the Philippines (1987)
  87. ^ a b c Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, p. 1166.
  88. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, pp. 1166, 1181.
  89. ^ Article 84 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan (1992)
  90. ^ Frieden, Luc (July 2009). "Luxembourg: Parliament abolishes royal confirmation of laws". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 7 (3): 539–543. doi:10.1093/icon/mop021.
  91. ^ a b c d Article 107 of the Constitution of Estonia (2015)
  92. ^ Köker 2015, p. 158.
  93. ^ Köker 2015, p. 157.
  94. ^ Köker 2015, pp. 86, 88.
  95. ^ Paloheimo, Heikki (2003). "The Rising Power of the Prime Minister in Finland". Scandinavian Political Studies. 26 (3): 219–243. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.00086.
  96. ^ Raunio, Taupio; Sedelius, Thomas (2020). Semi-Presidential Policy-Making in Europe. p. 57. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16431-7. ISBN 978-3030164331. S2CID 198743002.
  97. ^ Article 10 of the Constitution of France (2008)
  98. ^ Article 61 of the Constitution of France (2008)
  99. ^ Brouard, Sylvain (2009). "The Politics of Constitutional Veto in France: Constitutional Council, Legislative Majority and Electoral Competition". West European Politics. 32 (2): 384–403. doi:10.1080/01402380802670719. S2CID 154741100.
  100. ^ Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (in German). Article 82. ((cite book)): Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  101. ^ "Bundespräsidenten: Das achte Nein". Der Spiegel (in German). 8 December 2006. ISSN 2195-1349. Retrieved 2 August 2023.
  102. ^ Janisch, Wolfgang (8 October 2020). "Das könnt ihr besser". Sü (in German). Retrieved 2 August 2023.
  103. ^ "Hasskriminalität: Gesetz gegen Onlinehetze tritt Ostern in Kraft". Der Spiegel (in German). 1 April 2021. ISSN 2195-1349. Retrieved 2 August 2023.
  104. ^ Article 6 of the Constitution of Hungary (2016)
  105. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, p. 1164.
  106. ^ a b "Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson Will not Run Again for President of Iceland". 1 January 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2022. He was the first president to use the presidential veto power he has according to the constitution.
  107. ^ Elgie, Robert (2012). "The President of Ireland in Comparative Perspective" (PDF). Irish Political Studies. 27 (4): 502–521. doi:10.1080/07907184.2012.734445. S2CID 28754294. Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  108. ^ Article 27, Section 1 of the Constitution of Ireland (2019)
  109. ^ Hogan, Gerard (20 November 1997). "Article 27 comes with a Catch-22 that makes it unworkable". The Irish Times. Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  110. ^ Koff, Stephen P. (1982). "The Italian Presidency: Constitutional Role and Political Practice". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 12 (3): 341. JSTOR 27547832.
  111. ^ The Local Italy (29 May 2018). "Here's how Italy's president explains his controversial veto". Retrieved 18 June 2022.
  112. ^ Article 72 of the Constitution of Latvia (2016)
  113. ^ Article 71 of the Constitution of Latvia (2016)
  114. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, pp. 1172–1173.
  115. ^ a b Article 122 of the Constitution of Poland (1997)
  116. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, p. 1178.
  117. ^ Article 278-279 of the Constitution of Portugal (2005)
  118. ^ Fernandes, Jorge M.; Jalali, Carlos (2016). "A Resurgent Presidency? Portuguese Semi-Presidentialism and the 2016 Elections". South European Society and Politics. 22: 121–138. doi:10.1080/13608746.2016.1198094. S2CID 156761976.
  119. ^ Santos Botelho, Catarina (2020). "COVID-19 and stress on fundamental rights in Portugal: An intermezzo between the state of exception and constitutional normality". Revista Catalana de Dret Públic (Número Especial): 188. doi:10.2436/rcdp.i0.2020.3553.
  120. ^ Article 233 of the Constitution of Portugal (2005)
  121. ^ Article 90, Section 1 of the Constitution of Spain (1978)
  122. ^ Article 90, Section 2 of the Constitution of Spain (1978)
  123. ^ Article 134, Section 6 of the Constitution of Spain (1978)
  124. ^ Delgado Ramos, David. University of La Rioja The Government budget veto (Spanish)
  125. ^ Tsebelis & Rizova 2007, p. 1171.
  126. ^ Lagassé, Philippe (April 2017). "Parliament and the War Prerogative in the United Kingdom and Canada: Explaining Variations in Institutional Change and Legislative Control". Parliamentary Affairs. 70 (2): 280–300. doi:10.1093/pa/gsw029.
  127. ^ Torrance, David (16 January 2023). "Section 35 of the Scotland Act and vetoing devolved legislation". House of Commons Library.
  128. ^ "Documenting Democracy". 9 October 1942. Archived from the original on 1 June 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2012.
  129. ^ a b Hamer, David (2002) [1994, University of Canberra]. "Curiously ill-defined – the role of the head of state". Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia?. Canberra: Australian Government – Department of the Senate. Retrieved 1 November 2015.
  130. ^ Twomey, Anne (28 January 2019). "Why a government would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a bill passed against its will".
  131. ^ Campbell Rhodes (30 April 2018). "What does a state governor do?". Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. Retrieved 19 June 2022.
  132. ^ a b Article IX, Section 22 of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (1979)
  133. ^ Article IX, Section 2(q) of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (1979)
  134. ^ "Crown's financial veto". Cabinet Manual. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved 12 June 2022. Crown's financial veto
  135. ^ a b McGee, David (May 2021). Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. Oratia Media. ISBN 9780947506247.
  136. ^ Article 41, 68, Section 2 of the Constitution of Tonga (1978)
  137. ^ "King withholds assent on lower firearms penalties". Matangi Tonga. 9 January 2012. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
  138. ^ Oppermann & Brummer 2017, p. 4.
  139. ^ Immergut, Ellen M. (1990). "Institutions, Veto Points, and Policy Results: A Comparative Analysis of Health Care". Journal of Public Policy. 10 (4): 391. doi:10.1017/s0143814x00006061. S2CID 55825849.
  140. ^ Tsebelis 2002, p. 85.
  141. ^ a b Croissant 2003, p. 74.
  142. ^ Tsebelis 2002, p. 107.
  143. ^ a b Tsebelis 2002, p. 19.
  144. ^ Tsebelis, George, and Eunyoung Ha. "Coalition theory: a veto players’ approach." European Political Science Review 6.3 (2014): 331-357.
  145. ^ Tsebelis 2002, p. 4.
  146. ^ Oppermann & Brummer 2017, p. 2.
  147. ^ Oppermann & Brummer 2017, p. 6.
  148. ^ a b McGann, Anthony J., and Michael Latner. "The calculus of consensus democracy: Rethinking patterns of democracy without veto players." Comparative Political Studies 46.7 (2013): 823-850.