Can the United Nations Security Council Be Reformed?
Many want reform, but is it possible?
In September, the leaders of the world’s nations convened in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly. The 2022 meeting takes place within a changed international security environment that has seen the return of war to the European continent, following Russia’s invasion of its western neighbour, Ukraine, in early February.
Russia is one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. body charged with the responsibility of ensuring international peace and security. As a permanent member, Russia has a veto over Security Council decisions, an international status enjoyed by only four other nations: the United States, France, Britain, and China.
Ensuring International Peace and Security
The U.N. Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Charter, an international treaty that all U.N. member states have signed, obligates them to settle their disputes by peaceful means.
Member states may bring their disputes before the Security Council. Whenever international peace is threatened, the Council may convene. Its decisions are binding on all U.N. member-states up to and including collective military action to enforce its decisions.
There are fifteen members of the Security Council. Ten of those are non-permanent members who are elected by the U.N. General Assembly by geographical region. They serve for a two-year term. Decisions taken by the Council require nine yes votes. A substantive non-procedural decision cannot be adopted if it has been vetoed by a permanent member. Non-permanent members, which currently include countries as geographically diverse as Ghana, Ireland, and Brazil, do not have a veto within the Council.
The Security Council’s configuration had been shaped by those countries that had emerged victorious following the Second World War. Hence, countries such as Germany and Japan to this day do not have permanent seats. This remains so despite the fact that these two countries are now among the largest contributors to the U.N.’s budget.
Geographically, large parts of the contemporary world are underrepresented or not represented at all on a permanent basis within the Security Council chamber.
The entire continent of Africa still has no permanent seat. There is also no permanent representation from South America and the Caribbean. India, soon to be the world’s largest populous country, is also not permanently represented.
While individual countries from these underrepresented regions are regularly elected as non-permanent members, they can only serve intermittently for short periods of time and cannot veto a binding resolution or overcome a veto by a permanent member, even if it affects their own region.
This year, the changed international security environment proved a key point of discussion among many world leaders in New York. Many, including all of the permanent five members of the Security Council, addressed the war in Ukraine in their General Assembly speeches. However, the Security Council is unable to pass a resolution condemning the war or take action to end it, given that Russia has a veto to block such a move.
The Question of Security Council Reform Returns
Not surprisingly, then, the question of reforming the Security Council was also a significant point of discussion. Significantly, two of the permanent five members, the U.S. and France, addressed the issue directly when their leaders spoke to the General Assembly.
Such discussions about reform have been taking place for decades, without much change. However, the invasion of Ukraine by a permanent member of the Security Council this year has now called into question the credibility of the Security Council and the need for change.
There have been different reasons put forward in the past by both the U.N. and its member-states as to why the body should be reformed. Some would like the Council to be more representative, while others would like to see it also become more effective.
There have also been a number of proposals over the years to increase the membership and make the Security Council more representative. Such proposals have included expanding the number of permanent and non-permanent members or even creating a new class of membership lasting for four years. However, apart from the increase in the number of non-permanent seats from six to ten in 1965, the Security Council looks much the same since its establishment in 1945.
To make the council more effective, there have also been previous proposals that have included restricting the use of the veto or even abolishing it altogether. However, this has not happened. This is not so surprising, as this would mean less influence and status for the permanent five. The permanent five would have to agree to such a move, but it would only take one of the five to veto such a proposal if it were put to a vote.
This year, both the American and French Presidents have sought to nudge agreement about reform. Both addressed reform in their speeches. Both of these world leaders suggested increasing the Security Council’s membership and restricting the use of the veto.
U.S. President Joe Biden told the General Assembly that
“the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council. This includes permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported and permanent seats for countries in Africa [and] Latin America and the Caribbean”.
He also said that
“Members of the U.N. Security Council, including the United States, should consistently uphold and defend the U.N. Charter and refrain…from the use of the veto, except in rare, extraordinary situations, to ensure that the Council remains credible and effective”.
French President Emmanuel Macron expressed a similar desire to “finally begin Security Council reform to make it more representative, enable it to welcome new permanent members and to continue playing its full role by restricting the use of veto rights in the event of mass atrocities”.
Likelihood of a Reformed Security Council
The UN Security Council could be reformed; however, this would require overcoming a steep climb, as the U.N. Charter would need to be amended.
An amendment to the U.N. Charter could only come into force after a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of the United Nations membership. However, even if this could be achieved, such a change would also need to include all permanent members of the Security Council.
Finding agreement amongst the permanent five may prove the most difficult obstacle. This is because of the geographical and ideological power dynamics that exist among them. It is unlikely that Russia or China would agree to more Western nations such as Germany or Japan, becoming permanent members of the Council. The current configuration of the permanent five already includes three Western liberal democracies, and adding more may crowd them out further.
If it ever came to pass that an agreement could be found to elevate more Western nations to permanent member status, then it is highly unlikely that Russia or China would agree to relax or abolish the veto, as this would leave them vulnerable to being outvoted by a perceived Western consensus. Such an elevation to permanent status for Germany and Japan could most probably happen as part of a grand bargain.
If an agreement could be found to add more nations as permanent members, then at this point in time it seems more likely that consensus could be more easily found among the permanent five to agree to new seats for Africa, South America, and the Caribbean, and India.
Even if the Security Council does manage to reform and become more representative, a significant hazard would still remain: what can the U.N. and its membership do when a permanent Security Council member goes rogue and invades another U.N. member-state?
This is the situation the U.N. community currently finds itself confronting, following the invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia earlier this year. The current prospect of the U.N. Security Council passing a resolution to end the war in Ukraine, let alone sending in a U.N. peacekeeping force, is practically zero.
The U.N. Security Council can be reformed and should be, but there is also a more fundamental question that needs to be answered: Can it ever be reformed enough to achieve what it was intended to achieve?