Reforming the UN Security Council: enlargement is not enough

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has never played the ambitious role that the architects of the United Nations had intended, as it too often failed to prevent wars and ensure international stability. Yet, it has served a useful purpose in world politics as a clearinghouse and as the institutional forum where major powers could take a stand before public opinion. When the UNSC fails to resolve conflicts, other channels of international crisis management are inevitably activated – such as superpower summits, secret diplomacy, or even outright wars. It is therefore in the interest of international peace and stability that the UNSC be enabled to perform its function more effectively.

For at least thirty years, there has been discussion of a possible enlargement of the UNSC, mainly aimed at making it more representative through the inclusion of new member states. Proponents of enlargement point out that entire continents, such as Africa and Latin America, have no permanent representation, and the same is true for the most populous country in the world, India. While the need for enlargement is generally recognized, as expressed for instance in the UN’s Pact for the Future adopted last year, there is still no agreement on any particular model.

Together with my colleagues Marco Cellini and Azzurra Malgieri, we reviewed the reform proposals put forward by various states, along with the resolutions adopted and those rejected in the UNSC. Our analysis of voting patterns shows that, in most cases, the Council reaches unanimity. The fact that, from a quantitative point of view, only about five percent of resolutions are rejected confirms that international rivalry is concentrated on a few key issues.

Since 1990, veto use has followed certain patterns: the United States has primarily vetoed resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine; Russia has done so to protect its interests in Syria and Ukraine; China, after a long period of abstention, has more recently begun to use the veto, almost always in line with Russia; and France and the United Kingdom have not exercised the veto since 1990.

There is little indication that states act on behalf of their regions

Increasing the number of UNSC members – both elected and permanent – would not necessarily make decision-making easier, as a single negative vote from a permanent member remains sufficient to block a resolution if the veto right is maintained. Enlargement might make the Council more representative, but there is little indication that those who hold seats act on behalf of their regions. On the contrary, regional rivalries often undermine such claims. Those who oppose India’s bid for a permanent seat include Pakistan; similar opposition exists between Brazil and Argentina, and between Japan and China, and so on.

It would perhaps be more useful to expand the UNSC to include regional organizations such as the European Union and the African Union, even if only with an advisory vote. This could encourage states to increase coordination on a regional basis and thereby contribute to collective security.

The real obstacle is the veto power

If the real obstacle to the UNSC’s effectiveness and authority is the veto power of the permanent members, then mechanisms should be found to limit its use and make it more politically costly. Among the proposals under discussion are thematic limitations, which would prevent the use of the veto in cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and other serious violations of international law; requiring that a veto be supported by at least one other permanent member; obliging the state using the veto to justify its decision before the General Assembly; and invalidating a veto when there is a qualified majority against it in the General Assembly. Following Russia’s full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine in 2022, the General Assembly put in place a mechanism that it would automatically hold a session each time a veto is used in the UNSC.

Looking ahead, a newly created United Nations Parliamentary Assembly could have the authority, together with the General Assembly, to denounce vetoes that appear driven by national self-interest rather than the broader interests of the world’s citizens. Such an arrangement was included in the “Second Charter” presented last year by an international study group.

An assembly elected by the world’s citizens

At present, the possibility of reducing – or eventually eliminating – the veto power of the permanent five members remains largely aspirational and can only be realized if the P5 themselves voluntarily choose not to exercise it. The only hope is that the United States, Russia, and China will be forced to follow the example of France and the United Kingdom and refrain from using it. How this can come about remains an open question.

In the current political climate, it seems increasingly anachronistic that the most important global decisions on peace and security are made by a small number of governments. As a result, the UN is often not equipped with the necessary tools to resolve conflicts. To improve the functionality of the UNSC, and of the United Nations more broadly, new vitality must be injected – one aimed at preventing conflicts between individual governments from threatening the entire planet. An assembly elected by the world’s citizens, even if only with advisory powers at first, would be the best way to demonstrate that wars are not fought in the interest of the people, but rather to subjugate them more effectively.