Reforming UN Security Council could address crisis of legitimacy – but can this be done?

The escalating conflicts worldwide, notably the nuclear tensions in the Russia-Ukraine war and the humanitarian crisis stemming from the Israel-Palestine conflict, have again highlighted the limitations of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security.

The United Nations Security Council, the organ responsible for these mandates, has been criticised for its inability to effectively manage crises. This situation has reignited long-standing calls from the Global South for comprehensive reforms to make the Security Council more inclusive and equitable. But despite a shared desire for a more representative Security Council, the countries of the Global South are not in agreement about the nature of the reforms needed.

The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan), the African Union, the L.69 Group of developing countries and the Uniting for Consensus group, led by countries like Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and South Korea, have proposed differing models for restructuring the council, reflecting their unique interests and regional dynamics.

Reforming the Security Council is not merely about expanding membership but about recalibrating the institution to reflect the principles of fairness, representation, and accountability.

A reformed Security Council that truly represents the international community can more effectively uphold peace, address emerging global threats and maintain the United Nations’ legitimacy as the cornerstone of global governance.

Outdated Structure

The structure of the United Nations Security Council, which was formed in 1946, mirrors the geopolitical realities of the post-World War II era. The council has five permanent members – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), and China. They are collectively known as the P5. Each wields veto power. The council also has 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year nonconsecutive terms.

This composition has been criticised for being unrepresentative of the current international community. Africa, Asia, and Latin America remain underrepresented despite constituting a significant majority of United Nations member states. This undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Security Council in addressing global challenges.

The veto power

The veto power held by the P5 has been a focal point of criticism. The unilateral use of the veto for competing national interests prevents the Security Council from taking decisive action in situations where humanitarian intervention is essential.

Russia’s use of its veto to block resolutions addressing its actions in Ukraine has paralysed the council. Similarly, the United States has historically used its veto to prevent resolutions critical of Israel, hindering efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Need for inclusive solutions

Global security threats have evolved significantly since the mid-20th century. Non-traditional security challenges such as climate change, pandemics, cyber warfare and international terrorism demand collaborative and inclusive approaches.

The exclusion of significant portions of the world from critical decision-making processes limits the Security Council’s capacity to formulate comprehensive solutions.

Calls for reform

Various groups and nations have proposed differing models for restructuring the Council, reflecting their unique interests and regional dynamics.

The G4 nations – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – advocate for the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats, with themselves as candidates for permanent membership. They argue that their economic contributions and regional influence merit permanent seats.

The G4 shows flexibility regarding veto power, suggesting that new permanent members would initially not exercise veto rights, with a review later to determine their status. However, their proposal faces opposition from regional rivals and other member states, which fear a shift in power dynamics.

The African Union demands two permanent seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats for African countries. This stance highlights Africa's desire for greater representation commensurate with its membership size.

The L.69 Group, representing developing countries from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and the Pacific, supports expanding both permanent and non-permanent membership, including greater representation for small island developing states and underrepresented regions.

Their primary concern is enhancing the participation of underrepresented countries to reflect the United Nations’ universal character.

Conversely, the Uniting for Consensus group, led by Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and South Korea, opposes the expansion of permanent membership altogether. They advocate for increasing the number of non-permanent seats, proposing an expansion from 10 to 20 elected seats.

They argue that adding more permanent members would exacerbate inequality within the council and entrench power imbalances. This group aims to prevent their regional rivals from gaining permanent seats, reflecting deep-seated regional tensions.

Obstacles and pathways

In addition to internal disagreements within the Global South, significant obstacles persist due to the reluctance of the P5 to dilute their privileged positions. Each permanent member has strategic reasons for maintaining the status quo, and any amendment to the United Nations Charter requires their unanimous consent.

The great powers’ interests in reform are also varied and often self-serving. The United States has expressed support for Japan and India as permanent members but has been reticent about Germany’s bid, especially after disagreements stemming from the Iraq War.

Washington has indicated openness to certain candidates from the African Union but has not fully endorsed the African Union’s proposal for two permanent seats with veto power. This selective endorsement reflects the P5's tendency to support reforms that do not threaten their own influence.

Moreover, some great powers have conveniently used the complexities about the nature of reforms to thwart the entire process. By emphasising disagreements among reform advocates or proposing conditions that are unlikely to be met, they effectively stall progress while maintaining the appearance of engagement.

An incremental approach may offer a feasible path forward for Security Council’s reform. Expanding both permanent and non-permanent membership is a critical step. Reforming the veto power is also essential. Measures could be implemented to limit its use, such as requiring multiple vetoes to block a resolution or restricting the veto in cases involving mass atrocities. Yet, the P5 are unlikely to cede this power without significant concessions.

The real challenge

The crux of the impasse lies in the nature of the proposed reforms. With varying interests and proposals, both within the Global South and among the great powers, agreeing on a singular path forward is exceedingly complex.

The lack of consensus on whether new permanent members should have veto power further complicates negotiations. The great powers have also manipulated the reform discourse to maintain their dominance. By selectively supporting certain candidates or reform models, they can appear supportive of change without committing to any reforms that would significantly alter the power dynamics within the Security Council.

As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary amid increasing instability in global politics, the imperative for Security Council reform has never been more crucial.

The challenges are significant, but so are the stakes. The international community must recognise that inclusivity and equity are not just moral imperatives but practical necessities for effective global governance.

Thirunavukarasu S is a Doctoral Researcher at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, University of Madras. Vignesh Karthik KR is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian Politics at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden; and a Research Affiliate at King’s India Institute, King’s College London.