How far would possible reforms address the problems

of the UN Security Council?

The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful body within the UN, it is a key
decision-making body with regards to international security and peacekeeping and its key function
is to legitimize actions taken by the UN or member states (Cottey 1). However, for such a powerful
body it has become out-dated and is greatly in need of reform, in fact has been in need for reform
for many years. How did this happen? Well, in order to answer that we must first look back at its
original promises and evaluate whether they're being practiced and then analyze whether they're still
relevant with regards to global governance today . Founded in 1946, the Security Council was to
replace the failed League of Nations and be everything the League of Nations wasn't which it had
to if it was going to live up to its opening pledge of its Charter to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought sorrow to mankind (Charter of
the UN). Professor Luck, an expert in international relations, outlines the four 'special' features of
the new Security Council; firstly, it included all the major powers; secondly, the most powerful
states were given special rights with regards to maintaining peace and security; thirdly, it was to be
of limited size; and lastly, the Council had the ability to enforce their decisions however, its
members could stop an aggressor by using collective force if necessary; Luck refers to these
features as the centerpiece for the boldest attempt yet to institutionalize collective security (10).
Whilst some of these features to appear to be somewhat unfair, it is essential to bear in mind that the
world was still recovering from World War II and the alliance of Britain, America, Russia and China
was still strong and at the heart of the formation of the United Nations. It is also crucial to point out
that these four nations, along with their allies made up over three-quarters of the worlds population,
so it appeared to them and the rest of the world that if they and their advanced military power stuck
together, there was no chance of any nation rising to start another world war (Luck 11). However,
we are now 70 years on, world politics has changed, the way in which the world requires
governance has changed; yet the UN Security Council has not. In this essay I aim to evaluate what
problems and changes need to be addressed, and then to assess how far a possible reform would be
able to help these problems.

There has been a few minor changes to the Security Council, such as; increasing the nonpermanent members from 8 to 10 countries in 1965, the addition of Russian, Spanish and Chinese to
the working languages in 1969 and 1974 and the clarification of the Rule regarding credentials
in1950 (Bailey 100), however, no major changes to the original Charter have been made at all. In
1997, the President of the General Assembly made a series of reform proposals, but a lack of
consensus and political will meant no progress was made and reform remains stalled to this day
(Cottey 2). The first problem, I believe, that needs to be addressed are the central powers of the
Security Council. It has been said that the Five Permanent Members (P5) have a tendency to
dominate the Security Council, rather than act in its behalf (Hassler 87), which seems wholly
undemocratic when they make up only a fraction of the council. The Council was formed at a time
when the Axis countries (Germany, Japan and Italy) were very much aggressor countries and fresh
from having been the enemy in World War II, however they no longer pose a threat to the rest of the
world, and in fact have each paid their dues and become positive forces in world politics. I would
argue that Germany and Japan have both proved their worth, rebuilt their superpower status and
should most definitely be given greater power within the Council; Germany's armed forces have
played a vital role in international peacekeeping in recent years and their involvement in NATO
activities in Afghanistan have been crucial and Japan completely rebuilt itself after World War II,
and now has one of the strongest economies in the world and has become a reliable source to
dispatch personnel in United Peacekeeping Operations currently dispatching personnel to a
mission in South Sudan. In 1994 The British Government released the following statement; There
are certain countries which, by virtue of their global interests and contrition to international peace,
should be invited to accept the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership. We therefore
support German and Japanese permanent membership (Fassbender 239), France wholeheartedly
supported this statement and even went on to say they felt some states from the South also deserved
to be recognized (Fassbender 239). Therefore, the question remains, why hasn't this change been
made? Why are the five permanent members still a reflection of who came out of World War II

victorious?

An argument can be made that part of the reason the Security Council is so successful,
dynamic and efficient is due to the small size of core members and binding decision makers (Luck
69). There are also the structural constraints that do pose a challenge to a reform of the P5; Britain,
America, Russia, China and France whom are all permanent members, which has stood in the way
of formal adaptations before (Prantl 593). Although the threat that 'too many cooks spoils the broth'
plays a big part in the Security Councils reluctance to add more permanent members or give more
power to other countries; surely their proven dedication to democracy, peacekeeping achievements
and advanced military, should at the very least allow Germany and Japan more power. These two
nations, along with Brazil and India are the four nations that are most regularly proposed to obtain
permanent seats; the four mutually support each other and are known as the G4 nations (Global
Policy Forum). However, they face opposition from other UN countries that they either have old
animosities with or neighbor, for example, Mexico and Argentina do not want to see Brazil become
a permanent member and Italy and Spain have shown reservations towards the notion of Germany
obtaining a seat. This being said, if the P5 and G4 nations did come together and form a 19 state
Security Council, the nine permanent members would account for 60% of the worlds GDP and nine
of the worlds ten biggest defense budgets. Having considered both sides and potential opposition, I
firmly believe the benefits far out-weigh any negatives in having the G4 join the P5, it could only
strengthen the Security Councils power and finances. This reform would address a huge problem
the Security Council is facing being outdated, unfair and stuck in a post-war mentality.

The second reformation I believe would address the problems facing the Security Council
would be to review the veto, as it is the biggest cause of contention when analyzing its legitimacy.
The P5 states each have the power of the veto, this means that if any one of the permanent members
votes negatively in the 15-member Council, the resolution is declined. Each of the P5 has used their

veto, Russia being, by far, the country to have used it most often, but in the last 20 years the United
States had used it most frequently (un.org). In May 1997 the Bureau of The Working Group
presented a paper which said the following; The view held by an overwhelming majority is the
veto is anachronistic and undemocratic and should be eliminated from a modernized United
Nations. The veto should not perpetuate differences and discrimination among member of the
Security Council (Fassbender 263). This appears to be the mentality of most world governments
and of all the papers, books and journals I have read on the subject. Professor of International
Relations, Jochen Prantl, goes as far as to say the Security Council fails to meet its primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, because the system has
transformed in a way which is incompatible with the original design of the UN (559). There is no
doubt here that a reform is needed, because as successful as the Security Council has been so far, if
it is seen as illegitimate, undemocratic or violating the principles of sovereign equality it is going to
lose all of its power and influence.

So, how should the UN go about a reformation of the 'power to veto?'. There are three
options, the first, and most radical, would be to remove it altogether although I can't see the P5
ever agreeing to that right off the bat. Secondly, is the option to implement certain modifications
and limitations, however this then bring about the third option, whether modified and limited veto
powers would be then extended to new permanent members. There are advocates for each of these
options within the UN member states, though with regards to the third option, most would not want
the limited veto extended to any new permanent members. In the past there have also been
proposals for a timetable that progressively and gradually limits the use of the veto and, finally,
eliminates it (Fassbender 266). As I cannot see the P5 allowing total abolition of the veto to be the
first step, given the failed attempts in the 1990's, I believe putting certain limitations on its power to
be the best course of action, it would not totally solve the issues of the veto vote being
undemocratic, but it would certainly help the Security Council's problem of seeming illegitimate

and discriminatory. Proposals have been put forward by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries
and individually by Spain, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Ghana, Peru, Mexico and Singapore to have the
power of the veto restricted to decisions regarding Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Fassbender
266), which is; Actions with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of
Aggression (Charter of the UN), which would go a long way in addressing this Security Council's
problems of legitimacy. I also firmly believe, that if the veto powers were limited, it would be more
reason to increase the number of permanent members and then extend the limited veto to the new
members, be it just Germany and Japan or all of the G4 nations. This again provides more benefits
as it would open up more seats for non-permanent members to take a two year position on the
Security Council seeing as the G4 nations are almost always taking between 2 and 4 of the ten seats
available.

Which brings me on to my next point, further inclusion of Southern and developing

countries to the Security Council. Another reason the legitimacy of the Security Council is being
called into question is because of the bias towards the industrialized Northern countries, its current
structure provides privileges to the North that are not extended to Southern countries (Cottey 1). To
point out the obvious, none of the P5 are from the Southern hemisphere; which is even more reason
to consider making Brazil and India permanent members, but also, the Security Councils agenda is
primarily concerned with conflicts in the developing world and yet representation of the regions in
question on the Council is negligible (Hassler 93). Algeria once pointed out to the Council; [the]
obvious under representation of Africa on the Council and consequent need for a substantial
increase in the number of seats to be assigned to the African continent in all of the possible
scenarios (Hassler 93), yet despite this, and many other, calls for reform the Council has not
changed its structure which is causing many African and Asian countries to become ambivalent
towards the Security Council. Nepal correctly pointed out to the Council that reform could bring in
new political perspectives and increase the Council's authority (Hassler 94), yet still nothing has

changed.

This reform is crucial, especially when you take a look at the statistics; the number of UN
member states has increased from fifty-one in 1945 to one hundred and ninety-three today, yet the
Security Council has only ever added two more seats in 70 years, where is the logic in that? Surely,
given the huge expansion of the UN and the endless calls for more permanent members and more
seats non-permanent members; especially for the countries of the Southern Hemisphere it is time for
a reformation. At the moment, the only organ of the UN that is capable to adapt to change is the
Assembly, because the founders realized that the membership of a global institution could not be
static and that power balances were likely to shift; so why can't this be applied to the Security
Council? It doesn't have to be quite so flexible, but enough to change with inline with the Assembly
to some degree. Singapore's ambassador to the UN compared the current system to the New York
Fire Department, he said [they] are obligated to put out every fire, the Council picks and chooses
which emergencies to respond to on the basis of geopolitics and the national interests of its most
important members (Hassler 87), which is a direct result of bias, if the Southern Hemisphere's
representation is negligible they're problems are treated with less importance, simply because
they're not chosen to be there, not because they don't want to be. The structure of the Security
Council is out-dated, undemocratic and heavily biased, if change isn't brought about soon the
Security Council faces becoming irrelevant.

Overall, I have made a clear case that possible reforms would address the vast majority of
problems facing the UN Security Council. If the council were to expand its permanent members it
would show it has progressed since the end of the Second World War and give Germany and Japan
the recognition they deserve for having turned their countries around and devoted themselves to a
fair and just system of democracy, as well as playing vital roles in international peacekeeping.
Furthermore, including India and Brazil would show a move away from the bias towards the

Northern Hemisphere and ensure developing countries are represented on the Council at all times.
However, in order for the number of permanent members to be increased, there first has to be a
change in the power of the veto. The veto vote is highly undemocratic, which is ironic when the UN
has done more than any other global organization to support and strengthen democracy around the
world and has made it one of its key principles. As I said before, abolition of the veto is not
something that is going to happen on one go, but at the very least a reform in the way of
implementing limitations to its power and increasing the amount of countries with the power to use
it would go a long way in addressing this problem and hopefully be the first step in one day
removing it altogether. Lastly, increasing the 10 non-permanent member seats. The Southern
Hemisphere and developing countries are outrageously under represented, if the Security Council
wants to be seen as a legitimate global organization it is going to have to increase its number of
non-permanent seats and begin allocating them to Southern countries; especially as they're the ones
most frequently on the Council's agenda. These reforms would not make for a perfect Security
Council by any means, however many permanent members there are, there will always be nations
who feel they are being over-looked that have earned a seat, or nations that feel under represented,
and the opposite of that, there will be nations who resent the new permanent members and it will
probably result in the UN becoming somewhat less fast and efficient at least at the beginning. The
veto will always be a cause for contention until it is abolished, and even then, will it cause further
chaos and pro-long decision making? There is no perfect solution, but it certainly cannot remain the
way it is today stuck in 1945.

Citations

Bailey, Sydney D. The UN Security Council : Evolving Practice.The World Today 34.3 (1978):
100106. Web. 2nd April 2016.

Charter of the UN. United Nations. un.org. n.p.d. Web. 7th April 2016.

Cottey, Andrew. Reforming the UN Security Council? Cork; University College Cork, 2015. Web.
2nd April 2016.

Fassbender, Bardo. UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional
Perspective. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1998. Print.

G4 Nations Bid for Permanent Security Council Seat. Global Policy Forum. n.p. 22nd September
2014. Web. 5th April 2016.

Hassler, Sabine. Reforming the UN Security Council Membership: The Illusion of

Representativeness. New York: Routledge, 2013. Google Books. Web. 13th April 2016.

Luck, Edward C. UN Security Council: Practice and Promise. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Prantl, Jochen. Informal Groups of States and the UN Security Council. International
Organization 59.3 (2005): 559592. Web. 2nd April 2016

Veto List. UN Documentation. un.org. 12th January 2016. Web. 5th April 2016.