Introduction
Ever since the United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945, it’s been the principal global organization for peace and security.
Almost 80 years on, the UN Security Council (UNSC) which is supposed to ensure our safety has come in for increasing criticism : it has been called antiquated, unrepresentative and dominated by a small group of powerful countries.
Its present structure more accurately reflects mid-twentieth-century power realities than our current world. The crisis in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, and the ongoing problems in Africa are just a few of the events in recent history that have called the fairness and justice of the Council’s decisions into question. The five permanent members (P5) United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China reputedly can effectively veto any action they don’t like, regardless of urgency. Given this, the current imbalance directly contradicts the very notions of equity and collaboration that the UN was supposed to be a champion of. The process of reforming the Security Council goes beyond politics to core issues like ethical global governance, fairness and balance. This blog provides an overview of the history, challenges and potential changes to the UNSC, outlining how legal and structural modifications could increase even handedness in the governance of the world’s most august body.
Context and Background of the Security Council
Established under Chapter V of the UN Charter (Articles 23–32) as the main organ responsible for international peace and security.
The victorious Allies from World War II, ensured that they had permanent seats along with the veto power to stop unfavorable decisions. Their stated purpose was to prevent another global war by making them central to the UN system. Initially the Council had 11 members, but in 1965, it was expanded to 15 when the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1991 (XVIII). This also added four non-permanent seats to mirror the expanding rolls of the UN membership. The total number of UN members has grown from the 51 joined at the start to the 193 members today.
The rules for modifying the Council are found in Article 108 of the UN Charter.
They require any adjustments to gain a two-thirds approval from the General Assembly in addition to the consent of all five permanent members. This is not an easy path. Over time, clusters like the G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) and the African Union have pushed for broader representation in the UNSC which to them seems increasingly susceptible to power plays rather than collective interest : examples of which might be the deadlock during the Syria and Gaza conflicts or the blocking of humanitarian efforts by vetoes. As the geopolitical ordering continues to evolve, so do the calls for changes : some now are afraid a lack of action would corrode the UN’s authority and standing as a central figure in global governance.
Discussion and Legal Analysis
1. Legal Structure and Power Imbalance
Under Article 25 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is the only body with official powers whose decisions are legally binding on all member states,
a.granting it vast authority, but it also concentrates most of the world’s decision-making power in the hands of the five Permanent Members known as the P5. The veto power intended to ensure the major powers remain in agreement is also many times use abusively to prevent significant decisions. Out of 290 vetoes used between 1946 and 2024 more than 70% were to protect veto holder and/or its allies interest s not to help bring peace. An example of national politics taking precedence over humanitarian considerations is Russia, by using its veto on several occasions thereby blocking resolutions relating to Ukraine and Syria
In law, there is no way to review the veto power, which means the Permanent Members have much more influence than anyone else.
Under Charter’s promise that all countries, big or small, that they have equal rights, the veto power is fundamentally incompatible. this is the inability of the UN structures to be consistent with the objects of the Charter, as highlight by the International Court of Justice in the Certain Expenses advisory opinion (1962).
2. Political and Institutional Challenges to Reform
There are three main challenges to changing the UN system: legal rules make change incredibly difficult, pushback from today’s powers, and rivalries between regions this break the Charter’s goals.
• Legal rigidity: Changing the UN Charter needs all five Permanent Members should to agree. a. This gives one Permanent Member the power to block any reform, so they have a strong interest in keeping the rules as they are ideally.
• Political opposition: The P5 say the veto maintains world stability by preventing any single country from taking action alone.
Most people think this is wrong and anti-democratic.
• Regional competition: Greater Asia, Africa and Latin America each have their interests.
For example, some countries in the region, like China, Japan and India want to become Permanent Members but the Uniting for Consensus group (including Pakistan, Italy and Mexico) do not want to see the number of Permanent Members grow.
The Security Council, does not accurately reflect the regions irrespective of where they happen-Africa for instance; with 54 countries and several conflicts zones has no permanent seat, this lack of an African permanent seat diminishes the UN’s credibility when it intervenes in Africa. In 2005, the African Union adopted the Ezulwini Consensus, calling for at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats for Africa to make sure their voices are heard.
3. Role of International Laws and World
Leadership
From a legal perspective, the concept of equal power for all nations as mentioned in Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter is at odds with the fact that a small group of countries hold most of the power.
According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), when countries make changes to treaties, they should consider changes in the world this idea is very relevant when thinking of amendments to the UN Charter. In addition, today’s global issues such as terrorism, climate change, and cyber-attacks require decisions to be made by many countries together, but the current structure of the Security Council does not facilitate that.
Several initiatives of the UN to this effect,
including the “Our Common Agenda” report
(2021) and the Summit of the Future (2024), have already generated new debates on the change of the United Nations operations.
The debates refer to creating a system that is more linked and includes more countries.
However, these debates might remain just words without turning into real action if the legal rules of the Security Council are not changed.
4. Instances When the Security Council Failed
The Syrian Civil War (2011-present) is an example of how the Security Council is powerless to intervene.
Even though there was a strong need for intervention, the Council was unable to decide on any action because Russia and China used their veto power to prevent it.
Similarly, in the case of Ukraine (2022-), Russia has also employed its veto to block any resolution that criticized its activities.
These instances illustrate how the veto mechanism enables certain countries to act without being held accountable for their actions, thus, jeopardizing the Council’s impartiality.
Top scholars like Weiss (2020) and Malone (2018) argue that the Council’s legitimacy depends largely on how just it is.
They also say that when decisions are taken for the advantage of a few, people all over the world become skeptical of cooperation. This, in turn, undermines the entire UN mechanism.
5. Efforts Toward Reform
Several ideas for reform have been suggested:
• G4 Proposal (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil): This proposal envisages six new permanent seats in the Security Council.
The first two seats would be from Africa, the next two from Asia, one from Latin America and one from Western Europe. It also recommends four new non-permanent seats.
• Ezulwini Consensus (Africa): The main feature of this proposal is two permanent seats for Africa, and the two seats will be given the right to veto.
• Uniting for Consensus (Italy, Pakistan, Mexico):
It opposes the idea of new permanent members. Instead, they propose that non-permanent members extend their terms.
None of these plans has been successful yet. However, their perpetual existence indicates that changing the current situation is increasingly recognized as necessary.
The problem of changing the Security
Council as per the very strict rules of Article 108 of the UN Charter is difficult. There is also a risk of a deadlock.
Suggested Solutions and Possible Outcomes
To alter the Security Council, new laws have to be passed, and there has to be a lot of political support for it.
Some of the measures that could help the Council become more just and gain public trust are as follows:
1.Limit Veto Power:
A new regulation could be created which would limit the use of vetoes by permanent members only to some cases, i.e. when there is no serious harm or crime against humanity. This proposal has, in fact, been brought up previously: for instance, by the French-Mexican group in 2015 and the ACT Group in 2015.
2. Expand Members
Why not consider new permanent members from those regions where there is a lack of representation. e.g. Africa and Asia. This would make the Council more representative of the world of today and thus more just.
3. Regional Representation:
Implement a method of rotating different geographical areas to have the permanent seats. This would combine long-term roles with usual checks and balances.
4.Improve Transparency:
Ensure that the Council’s meetings and decisions are open and clear to everyone.
This would serve as a great deterrent to violations of the UN Charter and international law in decision-making.
5. Strengthen General Assembly Role:
Provide the General Assembly with more authority to take the lead when the Security Council is unable to make decisions due to veto blocks as in the case of Resolution
377A(V). Such reforms may enable the UN to be more just, provide immediate response, and be efficient in handling worldwide issues.
Without such changes, it is difficult to see politically how small steps over time may help gradually restore trust in the Council and make it more compatible with the modern world.
Conclusion
The United Nations Security Council is a moment of choice between holding on to its past and adapting to the needs of today. Its present composition, which is largely based on the power relations that emerged after World War Il, is not commensurate with the present political situation of the global village. The change is necessary not only to alter the distribution of power but also to regain trust in the UN as a just leader in peace and security. Even though changing the Council is complicated due to obstacles of law and politics, ongoing discussions and cooperation among different parts of the world can produce gradual but genuine change. The question of the world’s future governance depends on a Security Council that embodies justice, voices all concerns, and shares responsibility-principles that lie at the heart of the UN Charter and are the wish of the world
References
• United Nations Charter, 1945.
• United Nations General Assembly. (1965). Resolution 1991 (XVIII): Enlargement of the Security Council.
• United Nations. (2021). Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General. UN Doc. A/75/982.
• Weiss, T. G. (2020). What’s Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It. Polity Press.
• Malone, D. M. (2018). The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century.Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• African Union. (2005). The Ezulwini Consensus on the Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Addis Ababa: AU.
• International Court of Justice. (1962). Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter). Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1962.
Article is co-authored by Samta Kathuria
