REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

A critical issue in the U.N. is the veto power of Security Council members. If one of the permanent members France, Great Britain, Russia, China or the United States finds some initiative that calls for coordinated international action to be contrary to their national interests, that country has the prerogative to cancel it. That is what has blocked international action in Ukraine: Although 11 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in February to support a resolution to denounce the war, the resolution went nowhere because Russia vetoed it (China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstained). A successful vote would not only have denounced the conflict but laid out concrete next steps to reestablish peace, including negotiations or launching a peacekeeping operation with soldiers and civilian personnel.

Among the outstanding reform issues for reforming the UN Security Council are the enlargement of the permanent membership, the power of veto for possible new members, the general revision of veto powers and the duration of the term of office for non-permanent members.

The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. However, in view of the changing international situation, demonstrated, for example, by the dramatic increase in the number of U.N. Member States (193) and the emergence of new powers that have attained levels of global influence equal to those of the current permanent members, the legitimacy and credibility of the Security Council cannot be ensured unless the Security Council is composed in such a way that it reflects the general will of the member states. At the same time, the functions of the Security Council should be further strengthened. Thus, the objective of the United Nations should be to increase the Membership of the Security Council to enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness, while maintaining its efficiency.

Toward this end, it is necessary to expand the Security Council by adding countries in a position to assume global responsibilities to the permanent membership and also to increase by an appropriate number the non-permanent membership.

A reform of the Security Council should address the following points, with the aim of making it a more effective organ for carrying out its functions under the U.N. Charter:

1. In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council, new global powers having the capacity and willingness to assume global responsibilities have emerged. While recognizing that the current permanent members continue to be major actors in global political and economic matters, it is necessary to point out that there are now other countries that likewise play an important role in world affairs and make significant contributions to the United Nations.
2. Even though U.N. membership has risen to 193 countries, the number of seats on the Security Council has only been increased to 15, since 1965.
3. Opportunities to participate in the work of the Security Council as non-permanent members have become inequitable among regional groups. Such regions as Asia, Africa and Latin America have been underrepresented.
4. An important consideration for any reform is that it must not undermine the efficiency of the Security Council. A balance must be struck between the need to ensure the representative character of the Security Council and its efficiency.

The following steps should be taken to reform the Security Council in a manner that would enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness:

• In view of the emergence of new global powers, there is a need for a limited increase in the number of permanent seats in addition to the current permanent members.
• In order to improve the representativity of the Security Council, the number of non-permanent seats should be increased appropriately. Japan and Germany are obvious industrialized-world candidates for new permanent seats. In increasing the number of non-permanent seats, special consideration should be given to regions that are now underrepresented, namely Asia, Africa and Latin America e.g. India, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil
• While Japan and Germany are obvious industrialized-world candidates for new permanent seats, the choice of candidates from Africa, Asia and Latin America could include India and Indonesia for Asia, Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria for Africa and Brazil for Latin America.
• Measures should be considered and implemented to further the improvement of the working methods and procedures of the Security Council, including enhancement of the transparency of its work.

Note

Starting on January 1, 2023, Ecuador, Japan, Malta, Mozambique and Switzerland  will serve their two- years term as non permanent members of the on the powerful 15-member council. Japan has the most experience, having served 11 terms, while Switzerland which only joined the United Nations in 2002 and Mozambique, have never held council seats.

Ecuador, Japan, Malta, Mozambique and Switzerland will join Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana and the United Arab Emirates, which each have one more year on their non-permanent terms, as well as the permanent five veto-wielding members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

     2023 UN Security Council

     Permanent Members

1. China
2. France
3. Russia
4. United Kingdom
5. USA

    Non Permanent Members

1. Albania
2. Brazil
3. Gabon
4. Ecuador
5. Gabon
6. Ghana
7. Malta
8. Mozambique
9. Swizerland
10. UAE

Why does the Security Council need to be reformed?

1. The United Nations Security Council is the international community’s principal organ for peacekeeping and conflict management. Unlike the decisions of the General Assembly, its decisions (known as resolutions) are binding on all member states. That means it has wide‑ranging powers and can, if necessary, take actions – such as the imposition of sanctions – that encroach on state sovereignty.
2. It is right and necessary that the Security Council should have these powers. It is the centerpiece of the international security architecture. If its resolutions are to be respected and implemented by all countries, the Council needs to have the necessary authority and legitimacy. This means it has to be representative.
3. The current composition of the Security Council reflects the geopolitical situation of 1945 and its enlargement in 1963/65 adding non‑permanent seats did not significantly change this. The Council’s present composition is no longer representative of a world that has seen 193 new countries join the United Nations since 1945.
4. Alongside stipulating a geographically balanced distribution of seats, the Charter of the United Nations also expressly states that countries that make considerable contributions to the UN should be members of the Security Council (Art. 23 VN-Charta).
5. In the absence of reform, there is a danger that decision‑making processes could be shifted to other forums even though such forums do not have the binding effect and legitimacy of the Security Council. That is not in anyone’s interest.

Can Security Council reform be prevented by a veto?

Security Council reform requires an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations. The relevant procedure as set out in Article 108 involves a two‑stage process:

• In the first stage, the General Assembly, in which all 193 member states have one vote each, must approve the reform by a two‑thirds majority (that is, at least 128 states) thus amending the Charter of the United Nations as an international treaty.
• In the second stage, the amended Charter must then be ratified by at least two‑thirds of the member states, including the five permanent Council members, in accordance with national procedures.

This means that in the first stage, the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5) do not necessarily need to agree. During the second stage, the parliaments of the P5 countries could prevent the entry into force of the amended Charter by failing to ratify it. Even if permanent members voted against a proposed amendment in the General Assembly, this does not automatically mean that they cannot go ahead and ratify the amended Charter.

Should new permanent members also have the right of veto?

Numerous member states regard the right of veto as an anachronism. Many of them have therefore spoken out against giving any new permanent members the right of veto as part of a reform and there are initiatives whereby veto powers would not be applied in the case of mass atrocities.