In the grand halls of the United Nations, where the fate of nations is debated, an increasingly urgent conversation is taking place. It’s a discussion about the very foundation of global security governance – the UN Security Council (UNSC). Calls for reform have been presented in academic circles, yet in the past few years, such calls from those within the Council and those outside of it have never been louder or more pressing.
Sir Keir Starmer’s proposal to expand the permanent membership of the UNSC has sparked a vigorous debate, dividing opinions between those who see it as a necessary step towards global representation and those who view it as a potential dilution of British influence and a strategic miscalculation. Lord Hermer KC, the UK Attorney General, articulated the need for reform recently in a lecture to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, stating: “We will advocate for reform of the Security Council, to ensure that those with seats at the top table truly represent the global community.” This reflects his view that the UNSC needs to better represent the diverse and evolving global landscape, reinforcing the principles of inclusivity and representation in international governance.
These proposals also highlight the concerns of the wider “international community” that has long been critical of whether the council is reflective of the international order and the evolving landscape of conflicts, climate, poverty and inequality. The inclusion of African nations, and nations such as Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany would effectively double the current permanent membership, aiming to create a more representative ‘top table’ that mirrors the current global landscape. Such changes could grant more voices and perspectives in international decision-making, potentially increasing the legitimacy and relevance of the UNSC in tackling contemporary global issues.
However, this vision is met with stern opposition from figures on the Conservative benches such as Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Grant Shapps, who argue that broadening the council’s permanent seats might result in a “dramatic weakening” of the UK’s geopolitical leverage, especially in light of recent decisions like the concession of the Chagos Islands’ sovereignty to Mauritius. The concern extends beyond a loss of influence; there’s fear of these changes playing into the hands of Russia and China, countries with growing influence in India, Africa, and Brazil through strategic partnerships and investments and raises the ugly point of whether the veto power is a relic of a by-gone era, and even whether the Security Council is redundant in its current format. This argument suggests that an expanded UNSC might inadvertently empower nations with authoritarian leanings, thereby compromising the liberal democratic ideals traditionally upheld by the West. But with Russia and China already holding a veto, it is tough to see how much further this debate could be pushed, with the reality already readily apparent.
Critics also contend that previous attempts at reform have stalled due to disagreements on the specifics of expansion—highlighting the complexity of achieving consensus among nations with diverse interests and priorities. The existing structure, where each of the five permanent members wields veto power, already poses challenges in passing resolutions critical of any of them. This veto power remains a contentious point, often leading to geopolitical gridlock.
This debate isn’t new; echoes of James Cleverly’s similar past proposals speak to an ongoing dialogue about UNSC reform’s necessity and feasibility. Advocates for reform argue that despite fears of diluted influence, the structure is increasingly ‘anachronistic,’ concentrating power in a few nations, sometimes at the expense of broader global consensus.
Labour has countered criticisms by pointing out that past Conservative governments, including those served by current critics, have endorsed similar reforms, suggesting a degree of political opportunism in their current stance. Additionally, historical proposals like those from Kofi Annan underscore the longstanding international recognition of the need for change, despite the inertia that plagues such efforts.
Ultimately, the question of UNSC reform taps into broader issues of global power dynamics and the representation of emerging powers in a rapidly changing world. While the debate is fraught with potential risks and ideological divides, it also presents an opportunity to rethink how international institutions can best serve a multipolar world where challenges are increasingly transnational and require collective action. The path forward implies balancing the desire for inclusivity and effectiveness in international governance while safeguarding the foundational principles that ensure peace and security remain paramount.
The Security Council, established in the aftermath of World War II, was designed to be the apex body for maintaining international peace and security. Its five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – were granted veto power, a reflection of the geopolitical realities of 1945. But as we approach the UN’s 80th anniversary, it’s clear that this structure is straining under the weight of 21st-century challenges. The case for reform is compelling. The world has changed dramatically since 1945, with new powers rising and global challenges evolving. Climate change, terrorism, cybersecurity, and pandemics don’t respect national borders, yet our primary mechanism for addressing global threats remains rooted in a bygone era. The Security Council’s composition fails to represent the current distribution of global power and population, leading to questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness.
However, the path to reform is fraught with obstacles. Any changes to the Council’s structure require amending the UN Charter, which needs approval from all permanent members—a tall order given the vested interests in maintaining the status quo. The veto power, in particular, is a contentious issue. While it has prevented direct conflict between major powers, it has also paralyzed the council on critical issues, most recently evident in Russia’s ability to block resolutions condemning its actions in Ukraine. Some propose modifying the veto system, such as the French-Mexican initiative calling for voluntary veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities. Others suggest more radical changes, like abolishing the veto altogether or introducing a system where a supermajority can override a veto. Each proposal has its merits and drawbacks, and finding consensus will be challenging. Yet, the stakes are too high to abandon the pursuit of reform.
The Security Council’s failures have real-world consequences. Its inability to act decisively on Syria led to prolonged suffering and regional instability. Its paralysis on Ukraine has undermined faith in the international order. These failures don’t just cost lives; they erode the very foundation of global governance. But let’s pause for a moment and consider the counterarguments. Some argue that the current structure, for all its flaws, has prevented another world war. The veto power, while frustrating, forces major powers to negotiate and find common ground. There’s a valid concern that a larger Council could become unwieldy and less effective at rapid decision-making in crises. Moreover, reform proposals often focus on adding new permanent members, but is this truly the solution? Might it not just create a larger group of privileged nations while still leaving most of the world’s countries underrepresented? Perhaps we should be thinking more radically about alternative structures that better reflect the interconnected nature of today’s global challenges.
Another nuanced argument to consider is the role of regional organizations. The African Union, for instance, has long advocated for permanent African representation on the Council. But might strengthening the role of regional bodies in global security governance be a more effective approach than simply adding seats to the Security Council? We must also grapple with the reality that the UN’s effectiveness goes beyond just the Security Council’s composition.
The organization’s bureaucracy, funding mechanisms, and overall mandate all need scrutiny. As one expert noted in a recent conference, the UN’s development system is still designed to fix the problems of the 1960s. A holistic approach to UN reform might yield more substantial results than focusing solely on the Security Council. The emergence of new global challenges adds another layer of complexity to the reform debate. Artificial intelligence and quantum computing, as highlighted by UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, have the potential to transform global problem-solving capabilities but also pose new security risks.
How can we ensure that the Security Council, or whatever body might replace it, is equipped to handle these emerging threats?
There’s also the question of accountability. The UN system, including the Security Council, has been criticized for lack of transparency and accountability. Any reform efforts must address these concerns to ensure that the new structure doesn’t simply replicate old problems. As we navigate these complex issues, it’s crucial to remember that the UN, for all its flaws, remains an essential forum for international cooperation. Many smaller nations rely on the UN system for diplomatic representation and access to global decision-making processes. Reform efforts must be careful not to undermine these vital functions.
So, where do we go from here? It’s clear that the status quo is unsustainable, but the path ahead is far from straightforward. Perhaps the answer lies not in a single, grand reform but in a series of incremental changes. We might start by improving working methods, enhancing transparency, and gradually expanding participation in Council decisions. We should also look beyond the council itself. Strengthening other UN bodies, like the General Assembly and the Peacebuilding Commission, could provide alternative avenues for addressing global security challenges. The “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which allows the General Assembly to make recommendations when the Security Council is deadlocked, offers an interesting model for bypassing veto-induced paralysis.
Ultimately, reforming the Security Council is not just about changing its composition or voting rules. It’s about reimagining global governance for the 21st century. It’s about creating a system that can effectively address transnational challenges while respecting the sovereignty and diversity of nations. This is no small task. It will require political will, diplomatic skills, and a shared vision for a more just and effective global order. But the alternative—a Security Council that becomes increasingly irrelevant and ineffective—is far worse.
What specific reforms to the veto power are being proposed, and what are the potential pros and cons of each approach?
Several specific reforms to the Security Council veto power have been proposed, each with its own potential advantages and drawbacks.
1. Voluntary Restraint
One such proposal put forward by France is that of ‘Voluntary Restraint’; a French-Mexican initiative calls for permanent members to voluntarily refrain from using their veto in cases of mass atrocities. This proposal seeks to reduce paralysis in humanitarian crises, without the requirement for formal UN Charter amendments, which would also allow for flexibility for permanent members.
Critics of the proposal say that it is largely reliant on voluntary compliance, so could be ignored, and that it doesn’t address other contentious issues beyond atrocities. It may also be seen as insufficient by reform advocates.
2. Veto Override
The second proposal is that of a “Veto Override,” put forward by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2023. Some propose allowing a supermajority of the General Assembly to override a Security Council veto. This proposal has been proposed by France as far back as 2001. In effect, this would give the broader UN membership more say whilst also breaking the deadlocks on critical issues and preventing stagnation within the council. However, this proposal may also be resisted by current permanent members, leading to potentially more contentious relations between the General Assembly and its relations with the Security Council, and there will always be the potential for overuse.
3. Expanding the right to Veto
A third such reform proposed is that of expanding the right to veto by granting veto power to new permanent members if the council is expanded. This could potentially make the council more representative of current global power and could incentivize support for expansion from aspirant countries. However, proponents of this measure see that more vetoes could increase council paralysis, and may be opposed by current P5 members, and still fails to address fundamental criticisms of the veto itself.
4. Requiring Multiple Vetoes
There have also been proposals to require two or more vetoes to block a resolution, including document A/77/L.52. The text sets out that Article 24 (3) of the UN Charter should be used to submit a special report on the use of the veto in question to the Assembly at least 72 hours before the relevant discussion is to take place. Reducing the likelihood of single-country obstruction, whilst maintaining some privileged status for P5 and encouraging more negotiation among permanent members However, said reform still allows for potential deadlock, and may not satisfy calls for more radical reform leading to new political alignments within the current P5. The text, titled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council,” was tabled again by Lichtenstein, and co-sponsored by 83 member states.
5. Explanatory Requirement
Another part of the above resolution was to require veto-wielding countries to publicly explain their reasoning. This proposal could increase transparency and accountability, discourage frivolous veto use, and would not fundamentally alter power dynamics. However, it may not significantly change veto behavior and could be fulfilled with superficial explanations whilst ignoring the core issues of proportional representation.
6. Issue-Specific Veto Restrictions
Prohibiting veto use on certain types of resolutions (e.g. peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian action) would allow for action in specific critical areas while maintaining the veto power for its deployment on a core security issue. However, such a compromise would need to be acceptable to current P5. Without a backstop mechanism in-place at present for the restriction of this power, none of these proposals seems likely as this may lead to disputes over issue classification, doesn’t address broader representation concerns, and could be seen as creating a “two-tier” system of resolutions. This all leads to an overall question that none of the six ideas for restructuring and amending the veto address: whether a complete abolition of the veto could be the answer.
7. Complete Veto Abolition
The last proposal explained here is that of the complete abolition of the veto power for anyone on the council full-stop, disallowing P5 states from wielding their weight on strategic interests within the council, which as we have seen has become more and more politicized in recent years By removing a major source of council paralysis, this could create equality among all council members and thus lead to more resolutions passed. However, again this is likely to face strong opposition from the P5 and may reduce the incentive for major powers to engage with the UN, leading to decisions that lack great power support for implementation.
Each of these proposals attempts to balance the need for council effectiveness with the political realities of power dynamics among member states. The challenge lies in finding a reform path that can gain enough support to be implemented while still meaningfully addressing the criticisms of the current system. As James Cleverly noted in his 2023 lecture on reform, any reform will need to carefully consider both the practical and political. The goal is to create a more representative and effective Security Council without undermining its ability to respond to global security challenges.
However, it is not likely any such reform would interest P5 members who currently hold immense power on the council, and besides, why should that be given away?
As we debate these issues, we must remember that the UN and its Security Council were born out of humanity’s deepest crisis. They represent our collective aspiration for a world governed by rules rather than might. Reforming these institutions is not just a matter of geopolitics; it’s about renewing our commitment to that fundamental aspiration. The road ahead is long and fraught with challenges. But as the great UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld once said, “The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” In that spirit, let us approach the task of Security Council reform with urgency, creativity, and an unwavering commitment to the principles of peace, justice, and human dignity that the UN embodies. The debate over Security Council reform is more than a diplomatic exercise; it’s a crucial conversation about the future of global governance. As citizens of an interconnected world, we all have a stake in its outcome. Let’s ensure that our voices are heard in this vital dialogue about our shared future.
James Joseph is a PhD student at Queens University Belfast School of Law and JURIST’s Managing Editor for Long Form Content.
