Editing Veto (section)

== Worldwide ==
[[File:UN-Sicherheitsrat - UN Security Council - New York City - 2014 01 06.jpg|thumb|United Nations Security Council meeting room.]]

Globally, the executive veto over legislation is characteristic of [[presidential system|presidential]] and [[semi-presidential system]]s, with stronger veto powers generally being associated with stronger presidential powers overall.<ref name="oecd-system"/> In [[parliamentary system]]s, the veto power of the head of state is typically weak or nonexistent.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=5}} In particular, in [[Westminster system]]s 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 ===
* {{flag|United Nations}}: The five permanent members of the [[United Nations Security Council]] have an absolute veto over Security Council resolutions, except for procedural matters.<ref name="un-27">{{Cite web
  | title = Charter of the United Nations: Chapter V – The Security Council: Article 27
  | url = https://legal.un.org/repertory/art27.shtml
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | work = Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs
  | publisher = United Nations
}}</ref> Every permanent member has used this power at some point.<ref name="un-voting">{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | title = Voting System 
  | publisher =  United Nations Security Council
  | quote = 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.
}}</ref> A permanent member that wants to disagree with a resolution, but not to veto it, can abstain.<ref name="un-voting"/> The first country to use the latter power was the [[USSR]] in 1946, after its amendments to a resolution regarding the withdrawal of British troops from Lebanon and Syria were rejected.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url = https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.23
  | title = Twenty-Third Meeting
  | date = 1946-02-16
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | publisher = United Nations
}}</ref>{{further|United Nations Security Council veto power}}
* {{flag|European Union}}:  The members of the [[Council of the European Union|EU Council]] have veto power in certain areas, such as foreign policy and the accession of a new member state, due to the requirement of unanimity in these areas. For example, Bulgaria has used this power to block [[Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union|accession talks for North Macedonia]],<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/bulgaria-sets-3-conditions-for-lifting-north-macedonia-veto/
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | title = Bulgaria sets 3 conditions for lifting North Macedonia veto
  | work = EURACTIV.com
  | author = Krassen Nikolov
  | date = 2022-06-09
}}</ref> and in the 1980s, the United Kingdom (then a member of the EU's precursor, the [[European Economic Community|EEC]]) secured the [[UK rebate]] by threatening to use its veto power to stall legislation.<ref>{{Cite book
  | title = Veto Power: Institutional Design in the European Union
  | author-first = Jonathan B. 
  | author-last = Slapin
  | year = 2011
  | publisher = University of Michigan Press
  | doi = 10.2307/j.ctt1qv5nfq
  | url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1qv5nfq
  | page =  123
  | isbn = 9780472117932
  | chapter = Exit Threats, Veto Rights, and Integration
| jstor = j.ctt1qv5nfq 
 }}</ref> In addition, when the [[Parliament of the European Union|Parliament]] and Council delegate legislative authority to the [[European Commission|Commission]], they can provide for a [[legislative veto]] over regulations that the Commission issues under that delegated authority.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E290:en:HTML
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | work = EUR-Lex
  | title =  Article 290 
}}</ref><ref name="schuetze-2011">{{Cite journal
  | title = 'Delegated' Legislation in the (new) European Union: A Constitutional Analysis 
  | author-first = Robert 
  | author-last = Schütze 
  |journal = The Modern Law Review 
  | date = September 2011
  | volume = 74
  | issue = 5
  | pages = 661–693 
 | doi = 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00866.x 
 | jstor = 41302774 
 | s2cid = 219376667 
 | url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/41302774}}</ref> This power was first introduced in 2006 as "regulatory procedure with scrutiny", and since 2009 as "delegated acts" under the [[Lisbon Treaty]].<ref name="dearth">{{Cite web
  | url =  https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/10/25/a-dearth-of-legislative-vetoes/
  | access-date = 2022-06-15
  | title = A dearth of legislative vetoes: Why the Council and Parliament have been reluctant to veto Commission legislation
  | author1-first = Michael K.
  | author1-last = Kaeding
  | author2-first = Kevin M.
  | author2-last = Stack
  | date = 2016-10-25
}}</ref> This legislative veto power has been used sparingly: from 2006 to 2016, the Parliament issued 14 vetoes and the Council issued 15.<ref name="dearth"/>{{further|Voting in the Council of the European Union|European Union legislative procedure}}

=== Africa ===
[[File:Africa just countries.svg|thumb|Africa]]
*{{flag|Benin}}: The [[President of Benin|president]] can return legislation to the [[National Assembly of Benin|National Assembly]] for reconsideration within 15 days (or 5 days if the legislation is declared urgent).{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=19}} The National Assembly can override the veto by passing the legislation once again by an [[absolute majority]].{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=19}}<ref name="benin-57">{{Cite constitution | polity = Benin | date = 1990 | article = 57}}</ref> If the president then vetoes the legislation a second time, the National Assembly can ask the [[Constitutional Court of Benin|Constitutional Court]] to rule on its constitutionality. If the Court rules that the legislation is constitutional, it becomes law.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=33}}<ref name="benin-57"/> If the president neither approves nor returns legislation within the prescribed 15- or 5-day period, this operates as a veto, and the National Assembly can petition the Court to declare the law constitutional and effective.<ref name="benin-57"/> This occurred for example in 2008, when [[Boni Yayi|President Yayi]] did not take action on a bill that would set an end date to the "exceptional measures" by which he had kept the National Assembly in session. After pocket-vetoing the bill in this way, the president petitioned the Court for constitutional review.<ref name="dcc08-171"/> The Court ruled that once the deadline for presidential action had passed, only the National Assembly could petition for review, which it did (and prevailed).<ref name="dcc08-171">{{Cite web
  | url = https://courconstitutionnellebenin.bj/old/upload/decision/DCC08-171.pdf 
  | language = French
  | access-date = 2022-06-14
  | title = DCC08-171
  | date = 2008-12-04
  | author = Constitutional Court of Benin
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Benin}}
*{{flag|Cameroon}}: The [[President of Cameroon|president]] has the power to send bills back to the [[Parliament of Cameroon|Parliament]] for a second reading.<ref name="cameroon-19">{{cite constitution | polity = Cameroon | date =2008 | article = 19}}</ref> This power must be exercised within 15 days.<ref>{{Cite constitution| polity = Cameroon | date = 2008 | article = 31}}</ref> On second reading the bill must be passed by an [[absolute majority]] to become law.<ref name="cameroon-19"/>{{further|Government of Cameroon}}
*{{flag|Liberia}}: The [[President of Liberia|president]] has package, line item and pocket veto powers under Article 35 of the 1986 [[Constitution of Liberia|Constitution]]. The President has twenty days to sign a bill into law, but may veto either the entire bill or parts of it, after which the [[Legislature of Liberia|Legislature]] must re-pass it with a two-thirds majority of both houses. If the President does not sign a bill within twenty days and the Legislature adjourns, the bill fails.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=8}}{{further|Politics of Liberia}}
*{{flag|South Africa}}: The [[President of South Africa|president]] has a weak constitutional veto.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-11-21-no-sir-the-president-does-not-have-the-power-to-veto-the-copyright-bill/
  | access-date = 2022-06-13
  | title = No Sir, the president does not have the power to veto the Copyright Bill
  | author = [[Pierre de Vos]]
  | date = 2019-11-20
}}</ref> The president can return a bill to the [[National Assembly of South Africa|National Assembly]] if the president has reservations about the bill's constitutionality.<ref name="south-africa-79">{{Cite constitution | polity = South Africa | date = 2012 | article = 79}}</ref> If the National Assembly passes the bill a second time, the president must either sign it or refer it to the [[Constitutional Court of South Africa]] for a final decision on whether the bill is constitutional.<ref name="south-africa-79"/> If there are no constitutional concerns, the president's assent to legislation is mandatory.{{further|Politics of South Africa}}
*{{flag|Uganda}}: The [[President of Uganda|president]] has package veto and item veto powers.<ref name="uganda-91">{{Cite constitution | polity = Uganda | date = 2017 | article = 91}}</ref> This power must be exercised within 30 days of receiving the legislation.<ref name="uganda-91"/> The first time the president returns a bill to the [[Parliament of Uganda|Parliament]], the Parliament can pass it again by a simple majority vote. If the president returns it a second time, the Parliament can override the veto with a two-thirds vote.<ref name="uganda-91"/> This occurred for example in the passage of the Income Tax Amendment Act 2016, which exempted legislators' allowances from taxation.<ref>{{Cite news
  | url =  https://www.independent.co.ug/kadaga-income-tax-amendment-bill-now-law/
  | access-date = 2022-06-13
  | title = KADAGA: Income Tax Amendment Bill is now law
  | newspaper = The Independent|location=Uganda
  | date = 2016-12-22
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book
  | chapter = Interaction Between MPs and Civil Society Is Needed
  | author-first = Agnes 
  | author-last = Titriku
  | editor = R. Stapenhurst 
  | display-editors = etal 
  | title = Anti-Corruption Evidence, Studies in Public Choice 34
  | doi = 10.1007/978-3-030-14140-0_5
| s2cid = 198750839 
 }}</ref>{{further|Politics of Uganda}}
*{{flag|Zambia}}: Under the 1996 constitution, the [[President of Zambia|president]] had an absolute pocket veto: if he neither assented to legislation nor returned it to parliament for a potential override, it was permanently dead.{{sfn|Bulmer|2017|p=31}} This unusual power was eliminated in a general reorganization of the Constitution's legislative provisions in 2016.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url = https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default/files/documents/bills/National%20Assembly%20Bill%2017-2015.PDF
  | year = 2015
  | title = The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) (N.A.B. 17, 2015)
  | publisher = Parliament of Zambia
  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160109092321/https://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default/files/documents/bills/National%20Assembly%20Bill%2017-2015.PDF
  | archive-date = 9 January 2016
  | url-status = live
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Zambia | date = 2016 | article = 66}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Zambia}}

=== Americas ===
[[File:Amerika.PNG|thumb|The Americas]]
* {{flag|Brazil}}: The [[President of Brazil|President of the Republic]] is entitled to veto, entirely or partially, any bill which passes both houses of the [[National Congress of Brazil|National Congress]], exceptions made to [[Constitution of Brazil|constitutional amendments]] and congressional decrees. The partial veto can involve the entirety of paragraphs, articles or items, not being allowed to veto isolated words or sentences. National Congress has the right to override the presidential veto if the majority of members from each of both houses agree to, that is, 257 [[Chamber of Deputies of Brazil|deputies]] and 41 [[Federal Senate of Brazil|senators]]. If these numbers are not met, the presidential veto stands.<ref>[https://www.congressonacional.leg.br/materias/vetos/entenda-a-tramitacao-do-veto "Entenda a tramitação do veto"] [Understand the processing of a veto]. National Congress of Brazil. Accessed 15 October 2022.</ref>{{further|Government of Brazil}}
* {{flag|Canada}}: The [[King-in-Council]] (in practice the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom]]) might instruct the [[Governor General of Canada|governor general]] to withhold the king's assent, allowing the sovereign two years to disallow the bill, thereby vetoing it.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Canada | date = 1867 | article = 53}}</ref> Last used in 1873, the power was effectively nullified diplomatically and politically by the [[Balfour Declaration of 1926]], and legally by the [[Statute of Westminster 1931]]. At the province level, [[lieutenant governor (Canada)|lieutenant governors]] can reserve royal assent to provincial bills for consideration by the [[Cabinet of Canada|federal cabinet]]. This clause was last invoked in 1961 by the lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan.<ref>Jackson, Michael. [http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/bastedo_frank_lindsay_1886-1973.html "Bastedo, Frank Lindsay (1886–1973)"]. ''Encyclopedia of Saskatachewan''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130524112727/http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/bastedo_frank_lindsay_1886-1973.html |date=24 May 2013 }}. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina.</ref> In addition, the Governor General in Council (federal cabinet) may disallow an enactment of a provincial legislature within one year of its passage. {{further|Disallowance and reservation in Canada}}
*{{flag|Dominican Republic}}: The [[President of the Dominican Republic|president]] has only a package veto ({{lang|es|observación a la ley}}), which must be exercised within 10 days after the legislation is passed.<ref name="dr-102">{{cite constitution | article = 102 | polity = the Dominican Republic | date = 2015}}</ref> The veto must include a rationale.<ref name="dr-102"/> If both chambers of the [[Congress of the Dominican Republic]] vote to override the veto, the bill becomes law.<ref name="dr-102"/>{{further|Government of the Dominican Republic}}
*{{flag|Ecuador}}: The [[president of Ecuador|president]] has powers of package veto and amendatory veto ({{lang|es|veto parcial}}).{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=406}} The president must issue a veto within 10 days after the bill is passed. The [[National Assembly (Ecuador)|National Assembly]] can override an amendatory veto by a two-thirds majority of all members, but if it does not do so within 30 days of the veto, the legislation becomes law with the president's amendments.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=406}}<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author1-last = Basabe-Serrano
  | author1-first = Santiago
  | author2-last = Huertas-Hernández
  | author2-first = Sergio
  | year = 2020
  | title = Legislative override and particularistic bills in unstable democracies: Ecuador in comparative perspective
  | journal = The Journal of Legislative Studies
  | volume = 27
  | issue = 2
  | page = 15
  | ref = {{harvid|Basabe-Serrano|2020}}
  | doi = 10.1080/13572334.2020.1810902
| s2cid = 224949744
 }}</ref> The National Assembly overrides approximately 20% of amendatory vetoes.{{sfn|Basabe-Serrano|2020|pp=6–7}} The legislature must wait for a year before overriding a package veto.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=406}}{{further|Government of Ecuador}}
*{{flag|El Salvador}}: The [[president of El Salvador|president]] has both package veto and amendatory veto powers, which must be exercised within eight days of the legislation being passed by the [[Legislative Assembly of El Salvador|Legislative Assembly]].{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=405}} If the Legislative Assembly does not vote on an amendatory veto, the legislation fails. The Legislative Assembly can either accept or override an amendatory veto by a simple majority. Overriding a block veto requires a two-thirds supermajority.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=405}}{{further|Government of El Salvador}}
*{{flag|Mexico}}: The [[president of Mexico|president]] has both package veto and amendatory veto powers, which must be exercised within ten days of the legislation being passed by the [[Congress of the Union]].{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=405}} Congress may override either type of veto by a two-thirds majority of voting members in each chamber.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|p=405}} However, in the case of an amendatory veto, Congress must first consider whether to accept the proposed amendments, which it may do by a simple majority of both chambers.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Alemán|2005|pp=405, 420}}{{further|Government of Mexico}}
* {{flag|United States}}: At the federal level, the [[President of the United States|president]] may veto bills passed by Congress, and Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of each chamber.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = the United States | date = 1789 | article = I | section = 7 }}</ref> A [[line-item veto]] was briefly enacted in the 1990s, but was declared an unconstitutional violation of the [[separation of powers]] by the Supreme Court. At the state level, all 50 state governors have a full veto, similar to the presidential veto.<ref name="ncsl-executive">{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-executive-veto-powers.aspx
  | access-date = 2022-06-11
  | title = Separation of Powers – Executive Veto Powers
  | author = National Conference of State Legislatures
  | quote = Every state constitution empowers the governor to veto an entire bill passed by the legislature.
}}</ref> Many state governors also have additional kinds of vetoes, such as amendatory, line-item, and reduction vetoes.<ref name="ncsl-executive"/> Gubernatorial veto powers vary in strength. The president and some state governors have a "[[pocket veto]]", in that they can delay signing a bill until after the legislature has adjourned, which effectively kills the bill without a formal veto and without the possibility of an override.{{sfn|Watson|1987|p=407}}<ref>{{Cite book
  | title = Inside the Legislative Process
  | url = https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/inside-the-legislative-process.aspx#GenlProcedures
  | chapter = The Veto Process
  | chapter-url = https://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/ilp/98tab6pt3.pdf
  | publisher = National Conference of State Legislatures
  | year = 1998
  | pages = 6–31
  | ref = {{harvid|NCSL|1998}}
  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100115021825/https://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/ilp/98tab6pt3.pdf
  | archive-date = 15 January 2010
  | url-status = live
}}</ref>{{further|Veto power in the United States|Line-item veto in the United States|Legislative veto in the United States}}

=== Asia ===
[[File:Map of Asia.png|thumb|Asia]]
* {{flag|China}}: Under the [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China|Constitution]], the [[National People's Congress]] can nullify regulations enacted by the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China|State Council]]. The State Council and [[President of the People's Republic of China|president]] do not have a veto power.<ref name="china-qa">{{Cite web
  | url =  http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/Q&A/161688.htm
  | access-date = 2022-06-11
  | title = China Questions and Answers -- china.org.cn
  | author = China Internet Information Center
  | quote = 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. 
}}</ref>{{further|Government of China}}
*{{flag|Georgia}}: The [[president of Georgia|president]] can return a bill to the [[Parliament of Georgia|parliament]] with proposed amendments within two weeks of receiving the bill.<ref name="georgia-46">{{cite constitution | article= 46 | polity= Georgia (country) | date= 2018}}</ref> Parliament must first vote on the proposed amendments, which can be adopted by the same majority as for the original legislation (for ordinary legislation, a simple majority vote).<ref name="georgia-46"/> If Parliament does not adopt the amendments, it can override the veto by passing the original bill by an [[absolute majority]].<ref name="georgia-46"/> Before the constitutional reforms of the 2010s, the president had both a package veto and an amendatory veto, which could be overridden only with a 3/5 majority.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1179}} {{further|Politics of Georgia (country)}}
* {{flag|India}}: The [[President of India|president]] has three veto powers: absolute, suspension, and pocket. The president can send the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can be overridden by a simple majority. But the bill reconsidered by the parliament becomes a law with or without the president's assent after 14 days. The president can also take no action indefinitely on a bill, sometimes referred to as a pocket veto. The president can refuse to assent, which constitutes an absolute veto. But the absolute veto can be exercised by the President only once in respect of a bill. If the President refuses to provide his assent to a bill and sends it back to Parliament, suggesting his recommendations or amendments to the bill and the Parliament passes the bill again with or without such amendments, the president is obligated to assent to the bill.<ref>Article 111 of the [[Constitution of India]]</ref><ref name="intro india">{{cite book | title=Introduction to the Constitution of India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=srDytmFE3KMC&pg=PA145 | publisher=Prentice-Hall of India Learning Pvt. Ltd. | author=Sharma, B.k. | year=2007 | location=New Delhi | page=145 | isbn=978-81-203-3246-1}}</ref><ref name="india times">{{cite news | url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/The-Presidents-role/articleshow/20154333.cms | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120616231317/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-08-26/education/27323497_1_powers-impeachment-resolution | url-status=live | archive-date=16 June 2012 | title=The President's role | date=26 August 2002 | access-date=4 January 2012 | work=[[The Times of India]] | author=Gupta, V. P.}}</ref>{{further|President of India#Important presidential interventions in the past}}
*{{flag|Indonesia}}: Express presidential veto powers were removed from the Constitution in the 2002 democratization reforms.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author1-first = Simon 
  | author1-last = Butt 
  | author2-first = Tim 
  | author2-last = Lindsey
  | title = Economic Reform when the Constitution Matters: Indonesia's Constitutional Court and Article 33 
 | year = 2008
  | journal = Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies
  | volume = 44
  | issue = 2
  | pages = 239–262
  | doi = 10.1080/00074910802169004
| s2cid = 154149905 
 }}</ref> The [[President of Indonesia|president]] can however enact a "regulation in lieu of law" (''Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang'' or ''perppu''), which temporarily blocks a law from taking effect.<ref name="setiawan-2022"/> The [[People's Representative Council]] (DPR) can revoke such a regulation in its next session.<ref name="indonesia-22">{{cite constitution | article= 22 | polity= Indonesia | date= 2022}}</ref> In addition, the [[Constitution of Indonesia|Constitution]] requires that legislation be jointly approved by the president and the DPR. The president thus can effectively block a bill by withholding approval.<ref name="setiawan-2022">{{Cite book
  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6h9iEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT42
  | isbn = 9780429860935
  | title = Politics in Contemporary Indonesia: Institutional Change, Policy Challenges and Democratic Decline
  | author1-first = Ken M.P 
  | author1-last = Setiawan
  | author2-first = Dirk 
  | author2-last = Tomsa
  | publisher = Routledge
  | year = 2022
}}</ref> Whether these presidential powers constitute a "veto" has been disputed, including by former Constitutional Court justice [[Patrialis Akbar]].<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.merdeka.com/politik/adakah-hak-veto-presiden-dalam-sistem-ketatanegaraan.html
  | access-date = 2022-06-13
  | title = Adakah hak veto presiden dalam sistem ketatanegaraan? 
  | work = merdeka.com
  | author = Sri Wiyanti
  | date = 2014-10-10
  | language = Indonesian
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Indonesia}}
* {{flag|Iran}}: The [[Guardian Council]] has the authority to veto bills passed by the [[Islamic Consultative Assembly]].<ref name="iran-portal">{{Cite web
  | url =  https://irandataportal.syr.edu/the-guardian-council
  | access-date = 2022-06-11
  | title = The Guardian Council
  | work = Iran Social Science Data Portal
  | quote = The Guardian Council has three constitutional mandates: a) it has veto power over legislation passed by the parliament (Majles);
}}</ref> This veto power can be based on the legislation being contrary to the constitution or contrary to Islamic law. A constitutional veto requires a majority of the Guardian Council's members, while a veto based on Islamic law requires a majority of its [[Faqih|fuqaha]] members.<ref>{{Cite constitution| polity = Iran | date = 1989 | article = 94, 96}}</ref> The Guardian Council also has veto power over candidates for various elected offices.<ref name="iran-portal"/>{{further|Government of Iran}}
*{{flag|Japan}}: There is no veto at the national level, as Japan has a [[parliamentary system]] and the [[Constitution of Japan|constitution]] does not give the [[Emperor of Japan|emperor]] authority to refuse to promulgate a law.<ref>{{Cite constitution|polity=Japan|date=1947|article=7}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal
  | author-last = Herzog
  | author-first = Peter J.
  | year = 1951
  | title = Political Theories in the Japanese Constitution
  | journal = Monumenta Nipponica
  | volume = 7
  | issue = 1/2
  | page = 11
  | doi = 10.2307/2382947
  | jstor = 2382947
 | quote = 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.
}}</ref> Under the [[Local Autonomy Act]] of 1947, however, the executive of a prefectural or municipal government can veto local legislation. If the executive believes the legislation is unlawful, the executive is required to veto it.<ref>{{Cite web
  | title = Japan: Local Autonomy Is a Central Tenet to Good Governance
  | author1-first = Seth B.
  | author1-last = Benjamin
  | author2-first = Jason
  | author2-last = Grant
  | date = 2022-03-29
  | url =  https://icma.org/articles/article/japan-local-autonomy-central-tenet-good-governance
  | access-date = 2022-06-21
}}</ref> The local assembly can override this veto by a 2/3 vote.<ref name="shimizutani-2010">{{Cite journal 
  | title = Local Government in Japan: New Directions in Governance toward Citizens' Autonomy
  | journal = Asia-Pacific Review
  | author-first = Satoshi 
  | author-last = Shimizutani
  | page = 114
  | year = 2010
  | volume = 17
 | issue = 2
 | doi = 10.1080/13439006.2010.531115 
| s2cid = 154999192
 }}</ref>{{further|Politics of Japan|Local Autonomy Act}}
* {{flag|South Korea}}: The [[President of South Korea|president]] can return a bill to the [[National Assembly of South Korea|National Assembly]] for "reconsideration" (재의).<ref>{{cite constitution |article= 53|clause= |section= 2|polity= South Korea|date= 1987}}</ref> Partial and amendatory vetoes are expressly forbidden.<ref>{{cite constitution |article= 53|clause= |section= 3|polity= South Korea|date= 1987}}</ref> The National Assembly can override the veto by a 2/3 majority of the members present.<ref>{{cite constitution |article= 53|clause= |section= 4|polity= South Korea|date= 1987}}</ref> Such overrides are rare: when the National Assembly overrode president [[Roh Moo-hyun]]'s veto of a corruption investigation in 2003, it was the first override in 49 years.<ref>{{Cite book
  | author = Young Whan Kihl
  | year = 2015
  | title = Transforming Korean Politics: Democracy, Reform, and Culture
  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=IWqsBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA305
  | page = 305
  | publisher = Routledge
  | isbn = 9781317453321
}}</ref>{{further|Government of South Korea}}
*{{flag|Philippines}}: The [[president of the Philippines|president]] may refuse to sign a bill, sending the bill back to the house where it originated along with his objections. [[Congress of the Philippines|Congress]] can override the veto via a 2/3 vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law.<ref name="rose-ackerman-2011">{{Cite journal
  | author1-first = Susan 
  | author1-last = Rose-Ackerman
  | author2-first = Diane A. 
  | author2-last = Desierto
  | author3-first = Natalia 
  | author3-last = Volosin
  | year = 2011
  | title = Hyper-Presidentialism: Separation of Powers without Checks and Balances in Argentina and Philippines
  | volume = 29 
  | journal = Berkeley Journal of International Law
  | page = 282
}}</ref> The president may also exercise a [[line-item veto]] on [[money bill]]s.<ref name="rose-ackerman-2011"/> The president does not have a pocket veto: once the bill has been received by the president, the chief executive has thirty days to veto the bill. Once the thirty-day period expires, the bill becomes law as if the president had signed it.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = the Philippines | date = 1987 | article = VI | section = 27}}</ref>{{further|Politics of the Philippines}}
*{{flag|Uzbekistan}}: The [[president of Uzbekistan|president]] has a package veto and an amendatory veto.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1166}} The Legislative Chamber of the [[Oliy Majlis]] can override either type of veto by a 2/3 vote.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1166}} In the case of a package veto, if the veto is not overridden, the bill fails.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1166}} In the case of an amendatory veto, if the veto is not overridden, the bill becomes law as amended.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|pp=1166, 1181}} The Senate of the Oliy Majlis has a veto over legislation passed by the Legislative Chamber, which the Legislative Chamber can likewise override by a 2/3 vote.<ref>{{cite constitution | article= 84 | polity= Uzbekistan | date= 1992}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Uzbekistan}}

=== Europe ===
[[File:Europe ISO 3166-1.svg|thumb|Europe]]
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 [[Royal assent#Luxembourg|abolished]] in 2008.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | title =  Luxembourg: Parliament abolishes royal confirmation of laws
  | author-first = Luc 
  | author-last = Frieden
  | journal = International Journal of Constitutional Law
  | volume = 7
  | issue = 3
  | date = July 2009
  | pages = 539–543
  | doi = 10.1093/icon/mop021
| doi-access = free
  }}</ref> Countries that have some form of veto power include the following:
*{{flag|Estonia}}: The [[president of Estonia|president]] may effectively veto a law adopted by the [[Riigikogu]] (legislature) by sending it back for reconsideration. The president must exercise this power within 14 days of receiving the law.<ref name="estonia-107"/> The Riigikogu, in turn, may override this veto by passing the unamended law again by a simple majority.{{sfn|Köker|2015|p=158}}<ref name="estonia-107">{{Cite constitution | polity = Estonia | article = 107 | date = 2015}}</ref> After such an override (but only then), the president may ask the [[Supreme Court of Estonia|Supreme Court]] to declare the law unconstitutional.{{sfn|Köker|2015|p=157}}<ref name="estonia-107"/> If the Supreme Court rules that the law does not violate the [[Constitution of Estonia|Constitution]], the president must promulgate the law.<ref name="estonia-107"/> From 1992 to 2010, the president exercised the veto on 1.6% of bills (59 in all), and applied for constitutional review of 11 bills (0.4% in all).{{sfn|Köker|2015|pp=86, 88}}{{further|Politics of Estonia}}
*{{flag|Finland}}: The [[president of Finland|president]] has a suspensive veto, but can only delay the enactment of legislation by three months.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author-last = Paloheimo
  | author-first = Heikki
  | year = 2003
  | title = The Rising Power of the Prime Minister in Finland
  | journal = Scandinavian Political Studies
  | volume = 26
  | issue = 3
  | pages = 219–243
  |doi = 10.1111/1467-9477.00086 
}}</ref> The president has had a veto power of some kind since [[Finnish independence]] in 1919,<ref>{{Cite book
  | author1-last = Raunio
  | author1-first = Taupio
  | author2-last = Sedelius
  | author2-first = Thomas
  | year = 2020
  | title = Semi-Presidential Policy-Making in Europe
  | page = 57
  | doi = 10.1007/978-3-030-16431-7
  | isbn = 978-3030164331
| s2cid = 198743002
 }}</ref> but this power was greatly curtailed by the constitutional reforms of 2000.{{further|Politics of Finland}}
*{{flag|France}}: The [[president of France|president]] has a suspensive veto: the president can require the [[National Assembly (France)|National Assembly]] to reopen debate on a bill that it has passed, within 15 days of being presented with the bill.<ref>{{Cite constitution|polity=France|date=2008|article=10}}</ref> Aside from that, the president can only refer bills to the [[Constitutional Council (France)|Constitutional Council]], a power shared with the prime minister and the presidents of both houses of the National Assembly.<ref>{{Cite constitution|polity=France|date=2008|article=61}}</ref> Upon receiving such a referral, the Constitutional Council can strike down a bill before it has been promulgated as law, which has been interpreted as a form of constitutional veto.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author-last = Brouard
  | author-first = Sylvain
  | year = 2009
  | title = The Politics of Constitutional Veto in France: Constitutional Council, Legislative Majority and Electoral Competition
  | journal = West European Politics
  | volume = 32
  | issue = 2
  | pages = 384–403
  | doi = 10.1080/01402380802670719
 | s2cid = 154741100
 }}</ref>{{further|Politics of France}}
*{{Flag|Germany}}: The [[President of Germany|federal president of Germany]] has to sign a bill in order for it to become law.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (in German). Article 82. |title=}}</ref> This gives him a ''[[de facto]]'' veto power over [[legislation]]. However this power has been used only nine times since the founding of the [[Germany|federal Republic]] and is largely considered to be a ceremonial power.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2006-12-08 |title=Bundespräsidenten: Das achte Nein |language=de |work=Der Spiegel |url=https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundespraesidenten-das-achte-nein-a-453425.html |access-date=2023-08-02 |issn=2195-1349}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Janisch |first=Wolfgang |date=2020-10-08 |title=Das könnt ihr besser |url=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/hate-speech-gesetz-das-koennt-ihr-besser-1.5059141 |access-date=2023-08-02 |website=Süddeutsche.de |language=de}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-04-01 |title=Hasskriminalität: Gesetz gegen Onlinehetze tritt Ostern in Kraft |language=de |work=Der Spiegel |url=https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/hasskriminalitaet-gesetz-gegen-online-hetze-tritt-ostern-in-kraft-a-30ed56dc-5a72-4bef-bd77-84eb66994da7 |access-date=2023-08-02 |issn=2195-1349}}</ref>{{Further|Politics of Germany}}
*{{flag|Hungary}}: The [[president of Hungary|president]] has two options to veto a bill: submit it to the [[Constitutional Court of Hungary|Constitutional Court]] if he or she suspects that it violates the constitution or send it back to the [[National Assembly (Hungary)|National Assembly]] and ask for a second debate and vote on the bill. If the court rules that the bill is constitutional, the president must sign it.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Hungary | date = 2016 | article = 6}}</ref> Likewise, if the president has returned the bill to the National Assembly and it is passed a second time by a simple majority, it becomes law.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1164}}{{further|Politics of Hungary}}
*{{flag|Iceland}}: The [[president of Iceland|president]] may refuse to sign a bill, which is then put to [[referendum]]. This right was not exercised until 2004, by President [[Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson]], who also refused to sign two other bills related to the [[Icesave dispute]].<ref name="grimsson">{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.icelandreview.com/news/olafur-ragnar-grimsson-will-not-run-again-president-iceland/
  | access-date = 2022-06-18
  | title = Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson Will not Run Again for President of Iceland
  | date = 2012-01-01
  | quote = He was the first president to use the presidential veto power he has according to the constitution.
}}</ref> Two of these vetoes resulted in referendums.<ref name="grimsson"/>{{further|Politics of Iceland}}
*{{flag|Ireland}}: The [[president of Ireland|president]] may refuse to grant assent to a bill that they consider to be unconstitutional, after consulting the [[Council of State (Ireland)|Council of State]]; in this case, the bill is referred to the [[Supreme Court of Ireland|Supreme Court]], which finally determines the matter.<ref name="oecd-system"/> From 1990 to 2012, this power was used an average of once every three years.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | title = The President of Ireland in Comparative Perspective
  | author-first = Robert 
  | author-last = Elgie
  | pages = 502–521 
  | year = 2012
  | journal = Irish Political Studies
  | volume = 27 
 | issue = 4 
 | doi = 10.1080/07907184.2012.734445 
  | s2cid = 28754294 
 | url = https://doras.dcu.ie/20743/1/President_in_Comparative_Perspective_Elgie_final.pdf
  | access-date = 2022-06-18
}}</ref> The president may also, on request of a majority of [[Seanad Éireann]] (the upper house of parliament) and a third of [[Dáil Éireann]] (the lower house of parliament), after consulting the Council of State, decline to sign a bill "of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained" in an [[ordinary referendum]] or a new Dáil reassembling after a general election held within eighteen months.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Ireland | date = 2019 | article = 27 | section = 1}}</ref> This latter power has never been used because the government of the day almost always commands a majority of the Seanad, preventing the third of the Dáil that usually makes up the opposition from combining with it.<ref>{{Cite news
  | url =  https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/article-27-comes-with-a-catch-22-that-makes-it-unworkable-1.128575
  | access-date = 2022-06-18
  | title = Article 27 comes with a Catch-22 that makes it unworkable
  | newspaper = The Irish Times
  | author-first = Gerard
  | author-last = Hogan
  | author-link = Gerard Hogan
  | date = 1997-11-20
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Ireland}}
*{{flag|Italy}}: The [[president of Italy|president]] may request a second deliberation of a bill passed by the [[Italian Parliament]] before it is promulgated. This is a very weak form of veto as the parliament can override the veto by an ordinary majority.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | title = The Italian Presidency: Constitutional Role and Political Practice
  | author-first = Stephen P. 
  | author-last = Koff
  | journal = Presidential Studies Quarterly
  | volume = 12
  | issue = 3
  | year = 1982
  | pages = 341
  | jstor = 27547832 
 |url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547832 }}</ref> While such a limited veto cannot thwart the will of a determined parliamentary majority, it may have a delaying effect and may cause the parliamentary majority to reconsider the matter.  The president also has the power to veto appointments of ministers in the [[government of Italy]], as for example president [[Sergio Mattarella]] did in vetoing the appointment of [[Paolo Savona]] as finance minister in 2018.<ref>{{Cite news
  | newspaper = TheLocal.it
  | url =  https://www.thelocal.it/20180529/italy-president-sergio-matterella-statement-english/
  | access-date = 2022-06-18
  | title =   Here's how Italy's president explains his controversial veto
  | author = The Local Italy
  | date = 2018-05-29
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Italy}}
*{{flag|Latvia}}: The [[president of Latvia|president]] may suspend a bill for a period of two months, during which it may be referred to the people in a referendum if one-tenth of the electorate requests a referendum.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Latvia | article = 72 | date = 2016}}</ref> The president may also return a document to the [[Saeima]] for reconsideration, but only once.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Latvia | article = 71 | date = 2016}}</ref> Notably, in 1999, president [[Vaira Vike-Freiberga]] returned the Latvian State Language Law to the Saeima, even though the law had passed by an overwhelming majority the first time; the president used the suspensory veto to point out legal problems with the law, which resulted in amendments to bring it into line with European legal standards.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|pp=1172-1173}}{{further|Politics of Latvia}}
*{{flag|Poland}}: The [[president of Poland|president]] may either submit a bill to the [[Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland|Constitutional Tribunal]] if they suspect that the bill is unconstitutional or send it back to the [[Sejm of the Republic of Poland|Sejm]] for reconsideration.<ref name="poland-122">{{Cite constitution|polity=Poland|date=1997|article=122}}</ref> These two options are exclusive: the president must choose one or the other.<ref name="poland-122"/> If president has referred a law to the Constitutional Tribunal and the tribunal says that the bill is constitutional, the president must sign it. If the president instead returns the bill to the Sejm in a standard package veto, the Sejm can override the bill by a three-fifths majority.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1178}}{{further|Politics of Poland}}
*{{flag|Portugal}}: The [[president of Portugal|president]] may refuse to sign a bill or refer it, or parts of it, to the [[Portuguese Constitutional Court|Constitutional Court]].<ref name="oecd-system"/> If the bill is declared unconstitutional, the president is required to veto it, but the [[Assembly of the Republic (Portugal)|Assembly of the Republic]] can override this veto by a two-thirds majority.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Portugal | date = 2005 | article = 278-279}}</ref> If the president vetoes a bill that has not been declared unconstitutional, the [[Assembly of the Republic (Portugal)|Assembly of the Republic]] may pass it a second time, in which case it becomes law. However, in Portugal presidential vetoes typically result in some change to the legislation.<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author1-first = Jorge M. 
  | author1-last = Fernandes 
  | author2-first = Carlos 
  | author2-last = Jalali
  | year = 2016
  | title = A Resurgent Presidency? Portuguese Semi-Presidentialism and the 2016 Elections
  | journal = South European Society and Politics
  | volume = 22 
 | pages = 121–138 
 | doi = 10.1080/13608746.2016.1198094
| s2cid = 156761976 
 }}</ref> The president also has an absolute veto over [[decree-law]]s issued by the [[government of Portugal]].<ref>{{Cite journal
  | author-last =  Santos Botelho
  | author-first = Catarina
  | year = 2020
  | title = COVID-19 and stress on fundamental rights in Portugal: An intermezzo between the state of exception and constitutional normality
  |journal = Revista Catalana de Dret Públic
  | issue = Número Especial
 | page = 188
  | doi = 10.2436/rcdp.i0.2020.3553
}}</ref> In an [[Autonomous Regions of Portugal|autonomous region]] such as the [[Azores]], the [[Representative of the Republic]] has the power to veto legislation, which the regional assembly can override by an absolute majority, and also holds the same constitutional veto power that the president has nationally.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Portugal | date = 2005 | article = 233}}</ref> {{further|Politics of Portugal}}
*{{flag|Spain}}: The [[Constitution of Spain|Constitution]] states that "Within two months after receiving the text, the [[Senate of Spain|Senate]] may, by a message stating the reasons for it, adopt a veto or approve amendments thereto. The veto must be adopted by overall majority".<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Spain | date = 1978 | article = 90 |section = 1}}</ref> A Senate veto can be overridden by an [[absolute majority]] vote of the [[Congress of Deputies]].<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Spain | date = 1978 | article = 90 |section = 2}}</ref> In addition, the [[Government of Spain|government]] can block a bill before passage if it entails government spending or loss of revenue.<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Spain | date = 1978 | article = 134 |section = 6}}</ref> This prerogative is commonly called {{lang|es|veto presupuestario}} ("budget veto").<ref>[https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6874651 Delgado Ramos, David. University of La Rioja] The Government budget veto (Spanish)</ref>{{further|Politics of Spain|Royal assent#Spain}}
* {{flag|Ukraine}}: The [[president of Ukraine|president]] may refuse to sign a bill and return it to the [[Verkhovna Rada]] with proposed amendments. The Verkhovna Rada may override a veto by a two-thirds majority. If the veto is not overridden, the President's amendments are subjected to an up-or-down vote; if they attract at least 50% support from the legislators, the bill is adopted with the amendments; if not, the bill fails.{{sfn|Tsebelis|Rizova|2007|p=1171}}{{further|Politics of Ukraine}}
* {{flag|United Kingdom}}: The [[British monarch|monarch]] has two methods of vetoing a bill. Any bill that has been passed by both the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]] and the [[House of Lords]] becomes law only when formally approved by the monarch (or their official representative), in a procedure known as royal assent. Legally, the monarch can withhold that consent, thereby vetoing the bill. This power was last exercised in 1708 by [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]] to block the [[Scottish Militia Bill 1708]]. The monarch has additional veto powers over bills which affect the [[Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom|royal prerogative]], such as the war prerogative, or the monarch's personal affairs (such as royal incomes or hereditary property). By convention, those bills require [[king's consent]] before they may even be debated by Parliament, as well as royal assent if they are passed. King's consent is not obsolete and is occasionally withheld, though now only on the advice of the [[cabinet of the United Kingdom|cabinet]]. An example was the [[Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill]] in 1999, which received a [[first reading]] under the [[Ten Minute Rule]], but was denied queen's consent for a [[second reading]].<ref>{{Cite journal
  | title = Parliament and the War Prerogative in the United Kingdom and Canada: Explaining Variations in Institutional Change and Legislative Control
  | author-first = Philippe 
  | author-last = Lagassé
  | journal = Parliamentary Affairs
  | volume = 70
  | issue = 2
  | date = April 2017
  | pages = 280–300
  | doi = 10.1093/pa/gsw029
| doi-access = free
  }}</ref>
** {{flag|Scotland}}, {{flag|Wales}}, and {{flag|Northern Ireland}}: Powers exist under the section 35 of the [[Scotland Act 1998]], section 114 of the [[Government of Wales Act 2006]], and section 14 of the [[Northern Ireland Act 1998]] that allow the responsible cabinet minister in Westminster to refuse a bill that has been passed by the [[Scottish Parliament]], [[Senedd]], or [[Northern Ireland Assembly]], respectively, from proceeding to royal assent, if they believe that the bill modifies and has adverse effects on legislation that is [[Devolved, reserved and excepted matters|reserved]] to the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] to solely legislate on. This power has only been used once, to veto the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]] in 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Torrance |first=David |date=16 January 2023 |title=Section 35 of the Scotland Act and vetoing devolved legislation |url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/ |website=[[House of Commons Library]]}}</ref>{{further|Royal assent#United Kingdom|King's Consent|Politics of the United Kingdom}}

=== Oceania ===
[[File:Oceania without Asian country codes.jpg|thumb|Oceania]]
* {{flag|Australia}}: According to the [[Australian Constitution]] (sec. 59), the [[Monarchy of Australia|monarch]] may veto a bill that has been given royal assent by the [[governor-general of Australia|governor-general]] within one year of the legislation being assented to.<ref name="gov.au">{{cite web |url=http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=25 |title=Documenting Democracy |publisher=Foundingdocs.gov.au |date=9 October 1942 |access-date=2012-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110601205107/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=25 |archive-date=1 June 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> This power has never been used. The Australian governor-general himself or herself has, in theory, the power to veto, or more technically, withhold assent to, a bill passed by both houses of the [[Australian Parliament]], and contrary to the advice of the prime minister.<ref name="hamer">{{Cite web |last=Hamer |first=David |author-link=David Hamer |year=2002 |work=Can Responsible Government Survive in Australia? |title=Curiously ill-defined – the role of the head of state |publisher=Australian Government – Department of the Senate |location=Canberra |orig-year=1994, University of Canberra |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/~/link.aspx?_id=9495A9BDD2964D7DB682C13BFA5D4D1A&_z=z |access-date=1 November 2015}}</ref> However, in matters of assent to legislation, the governor-general is advised by parliament, not by the government. Consequently, when a minority parliament passes a bill against the wishes of the government, the government could resign, but cannot advise a veto.<ref name="hamer" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://theconversation.com/why-a-government-would-be-mad-to-advise-the-refusal-of-royal-assent-to-a-bill-passed-against-its-will-110501|title=Why a government would be mad to advise the refusal of royal assent to a bill passed against its will|last= Twomey | first=Anne|date=28 January 2019 }}</ref> Since 1986, the individual states of Australia are fully independent entities. Thus, the Crown may not veto (nor the UK Parliament overturn) any act of a state governor or state legislature. State constitutions determine what role the state's governor plays. In general, the governor exercises the powers the sovereign would have; in all states and territories, the governor's (or, for territories, administrator's) assent is required for a bill to become law, except the [[Australian Capital Territory]], which has no administrator.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/what-does-a-state-governor-do/
  | access-date = 2022-06-19
  | title = What does a state governor do?
  | publisher = Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House
  | author = Campbell Rhodes
  | date = 2018-04-30
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Australia}}
*{{flag|Federated States of Micronesia}}: The [[President of the Federated States of Micronesia|President]] can disapprove legislation passed by the [[Congress of the Federated States of Micronesia|Congress]].<ref name="fsom-ix-22">{{cite constitution
| article = IX
| section = 22
| polity = the Federated States of Micronesia
| date = 1979
}}</ref> The veto must be exercised within 10 days, or 30 days if the Congress is not in session.<ref name="fsom-ix-22"/> The Congress can override the veto by a three-fourths vote of the four state delegations, with each state delegation casting one vote.<ref name="fsom-ix-2q">{{cite constitution
| article = IX
| section = 2(q)
| polity = the Federated States of Micronesia
| date = 1979
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of the Federated States of Micronesia}}
*{{flag|Fiji}}: Under the 2013 [[Constitution of Fiji|Constitution]], the [[President of Fiji|President]] has no authority to veto legislation that has been passed by the [[Parliament of Fiji|Parliament]]. Under the previous bicameral constitutions, the appointed [[Senate of Fiji|Senate]] had veto powers over legislation passed by the elected lower house. {{further|Politics of Fiji}}
*{{flag|New Zealand}}: Under the Standing Orders of the [[New Zealand House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], the [[New Zealand Government|Government]] has a [[financial veto]], under which it can block bills, amendments and motions that would have more than a minor impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates.<ref>{{Cite web
  | url =  https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/7-executive-legislation-11
  | access-date = 2022-06-12
  | title = Crown's financial veto
  | publisher = Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
  | work = Cabinet Manual
  | quote = Crown's financial veto
}}</ref> Bills can be subjected to a financial veto only on third reading, when they have been finalized, but before they have been passed.<ref name="mcgee">{{Cite book
  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ENgvEAAAQBAJ
  | title = Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand
  | first = David 
  | last = McGee
  | date = May 2021
 | publisher = Oratia Media
 | isbn = 9780947506247
 }}</ref> The financial veto system was introduced in 1996.<ref name="mcgee"/>{{further|Politics of New Zealand}}
*{{flag|Tonga}}: The [[Constitution of Tonga|constitution]] empowers the [[List of monarchs of Tonga|King]] to withhold royal assent from bills adopted by the [[Legislative Assembly of Tonga|Legislative Assembly]].<ref>{{Cite constitution | polity = Tonga | date = 1978 | article = 41, 68 |section = 2}}</ref> In November 2011, the assembly adopted a bill that reduced the possible criminal sentences for the illicit possession of firearms, an offence for which two members of the assembly had recently been charged. Members of the opposition denounced the bill and asked the King to veto it, and he did so in December 2011.<ref>{{Cite news
  | url = https://matangitonga.to/2012/01/09/king-withholds-assent-lower-firearms-penalties
  | title = King withholds assent on lower firearms penalties
  | newspaper = Matangi Tonga
  | date = 2012-01-09
  | access-date = 2022-06-22
}}</ref>{{further|Politics of Tonga|Royal assent#Tonga}}