The U.N. Security Council can pass resolutions which all U.N. member states are required to comply with. 5 of these are permanent members. The permanent members can veto any action of the Security Council.

In 1950 the Security Council passed SC Resolution 83, which sanctioned the use of combined forces to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea. The action passed - partially because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations at the time.

I am wondering what could have happened if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution. Did the UN's policies in 1950* contain a way to pass a resolution if one of the permanent members vetoes it? Could the UN have intervened another way if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution?

Shortly after this the U.N. passed Resolution 377, which allows the General Assembly to act when the 5 permanent members of the Security Council don't agree. This question is about what tools were available prior to Resolution 377

The U.N. Security Council can pass resolutions that all U.N. member states are required to comply with. Five of these are permanent members. The permanent members can veto any action of the Security Council.

In 1950 the Security Council passed SC Resolution 83, which sanctioned the use of combined forces to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea. The action passed - partially because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations at the time.

I am wondering what could have happened if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution. Did the UN's procedures in 1950* contain a way to pass a resolution if one of the permanent members vetoes it? Could the UN have intervened another way if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution?

Shortly after this the U.N. passed Resolution 377, which allows the General Assembly to act when the 5 permanent members of the Security Council don't agree. This question is about what tools were available before Resolution 377

Just to give context, at the passing of SC Resolution 83 the UN gave its sanction for combined forces to repel the North Korean invasion. At the time the Soviets couldn't veto the resolutions because of their boycott of the SC. Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council, because the United Nations continued to recognise the Chinese Nationalist Republic of China as opposed to the communist Peoples Republic of China after the communist revolution. 1949 Chinese Communist Revolution. Therefore they because of this boycott, and because they physically weren't present, they couldn't veto. This is explained in the following excerpt from Wikipedia:

The principal accidental circumstance referred to by Dulles was that the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council at the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, and had been since January 1950, owing to its discontent over the UN's refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China's representatives as the legitimate representatives of China, returning only on 1 August 1950 to assume the rotating role of Council President, for that month. This circumstance had meant that the Security Council was able to adopt its resolutions 83, of 27 June 1950, and 84, of 7 July 1950, thereby establishing a UN-mandated force for South Korea "to repel the armed attack" from the North. Had the Soviet Union been seated at the Council during the months of June and July, the relevant draft resolutions would almost certainly have been vetoed,....
GA Resolution 377

The possible reasons why the Soviets seemingly were so shortsighted in doing this are given in this History SE question.

After the intervention by the UN its members realised just how lucky they were in the circumstances that the Soviets couldn't veto, that they wanted to create another possible avenue in the case of lack of unanimity in the SC. This was supposedly GA Resolution 377, so it seems as if there is a difference in the actions at the UN's disposal before and after this GA Resolution 377 in 1950. I don't understand this, however this is another question.

My question is simply whether a veto of SC Resolutions 83 at the SC would have been a be-all-and-end-all affair, effectively making it impossible for the UN to intervene in Korea in 1950.

The U.N. Security Council can pass resolutions which all U.N. member states are required to comply with. 5 of these are permanent members. The permanent members can veto any action of the Security Council.

In 1950 the Security Council passed SC Resolution 83, which sanctioned the use of combined forces to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea. The action passed - partially because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations at the time.

I am wondering what could have happened if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution. Did the UN's policies in 1950* contain a way to pass a resolution if one of the permanent members vetoes it? Could the UN have intervened another way if the Soviet Union had vetoed this resolution?

Shortly after this the U.N. passed Resolution 377, which allows the General Assembly to act when the 5 permanent members of the Security Council don't agree. This question is about what tools were available prior to Resolution 377

I was wondering how the UN Security Council in 1950 could have made a resolution to intervene in the Korean War if the Soviet Union had veto power.

However I've found out that in fact in 1950 the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council, apparently not attending their sessions, because the United Nations continued to recognise the Chinese Nationalist Republic of China as opposed to the communist Peoples Republic of China after the communist revolution. 1949 Chinese Communist Revolution.

I've changed my original question because it already exists here.

I'd like to ask whether the Soviet Union's veto power in 1950 would have left the North to the mercy of the invading North, without intervention to repel the invading forces. I ask this as a matter of the inner workings of the UN. Did the veto automatically end any recourse to intervention? Or would there possibly have been other legal or political alternatives available in going to war against North Korea?

Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article that explains context of the veto and the boycott.

The principal accidental circumstance referred to by Dulles was that the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council at the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, and had been since January 1950, owing to its discontent over the UN's refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China's representatives as the legitimate representatives of China, returning only on 1 August 1950 to assume the rotating role of Council President, for that month. This circumstance had meant that the Security Council was able to adopt its resolutions 83, of 27 June 1950, and 84, of 7 July 1950, thereby establishing a UN-mandated force for South Korea "to repel the armed attack" from the North. Had the Soviet Union been seated at the Council during the months of June and July, the relevant draft resolutions would almost certainly have been vetoed, and the United States was well aware of this, as evidenced by the above statement.
General Assembly Resolution 377

Just to give context, at the passing of SC Resolution 83 the UN gave its sanction for combined forces to repel the North Korean invasion. At the time the Soviets couldn't veto the resolutions because of their boycott of the SC. Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council, because the United Nations continued to recognise the Chinese Nationalist Republic of China as opposed to the communist Peoples Republic of China after the communist revolution. 1949 Chinese Communist Revolution. Therefore they because of this boycott, and because they physically weren't present, they couldn't veto. This is explained in the following excerpt from Wikipedia:

The principal accidental circumstance referred to by Dulles was that the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council at the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, and had been since January 1950, owing to its discontent over the UN's refusal to recognize the People's Republic of China's representatives as the legitimate representatives of China, returning only on 1 August 1950 to assume the rotating role of Council President, for that month. This circumstance had meant that the Security Council was able to adopt its resolutions 83, of 27 June 1950, and 84, of 7 July 1950, thereby establishing a UN-mandated force for South Korea "to repel the armed attack" from the North. Had the Soviet Union been seated at the Council during the months of June and July, the relevant draft resolutions would almost certainly have been vetoed,....
GA Resolution 377

The possible reasons why the Soviets seemingly were so shortsighted in doing this are given in this History SE question.

After the intervention by the UN its members realised just how lucky they were in the circumstances that the Soviets couldn't veto, that they wanted to create another possible avenue in the case of lack of unanimity in the SC. This was supposedly GA Resolution 377, so it seems as if there is a difference in the actions at the UN's disposal before and after this GA Resolution 377 in 1950. I don't understand this, however this is another question.

My question is simply whether a veto of SC Resolutions 83 at the SC would have been a be-all-and-end-all affair, effectively making it impossible for the UN to intervene in Korea in 1950.