"vetoing" is a correct and usable word in written English.
You can use it when you want to show that someone has the power to deny or reject an idea or demand. Example sentence: The President has the power to veto any bill the Congress passes, so the legislators must carefully consider each decision they make.
One of those bodies is likely to be the Security Council, but its voting system, vetoing powers and membership would need to change before it could hope to become effective.
But the proposal came with the precondition that the UN send in enough troops to fill the vacuum and prevent Mr Kabila from taking advantage of the gesture.The Congolese government has been a difficult host to the UN observers, constantly vetoing missions to sensitive areas and holding out against the arrival of peacekeeping troops.
He annoyed his own supporters by vetoing more local capital projects in his first year than had been vetoed in the history of the state.
He has got involved in matters better left to others: he clashed with Congress by vetoing a populist law to slash telephone rates, only to be accused of collusion with the telephone company by negotiating reductions himself.In this section Don't cry for Menem A country turns upside down Martin by a mile?
At the UN Security Council on February 4th, Russia and China raised Western ire by vetoing a mild resolution that would have urged Bashar Assad, the president, to adhere to a peace plan drafted by the Arab League.
He seems bent on taking a tougher line on congressional pork (vetoing something soon would help).
Mr Fazio is no stranger to criticism: in 1999, for instance, he raised eyebrows by vetoing a bid for Banca di Roma by Sanpaolo IMI, a big bank in Turin, without much of an explanation.
But on both men's minds must hang the question of what recent events will mean for their future co-operation.America continued to fight on Israel's side, vetoing a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned it harshly for the carnage in Gaza.
In December Mr Cameron said he was mainly vetoing the treaty because it did not provide enough assurances on financial regulation, which poses a growing threat to Britain's vast banking sector.
They sued, claiming that the free-speech guarantee in the United States Constitution prohibits vetoing expressions simply because they may be offensive to some.
By vetoing a simple resolution condemning an aggressor, they have subordinated Security Council procedure to self-interest and reduced it to emptiness.
