The Case for Reform: Is There a Point to the UNSC Anymore?
The Security Council of the United Nations is an institution that has been the topic of much debate in recent times, primarily due to concerns over its legitimacy with the widely held belief that it is no longer representative of the changing geopolitical power balance. The institution as a whole seems to be at curious odds with its founding aims of bringing together the governments of the world to “discuss common problems and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity”, a slogan that appears out of place in an increasingly hostile political climate. This feeling is further enhanced by the structure of Security Council membership where the five permanent members – the United States, the People’s Republic of China, France, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation – possess a veto over all resolutions voted upon by the Council, the only organ of the UN authorised to investigate and act on situations of military security and to issue resolutions that are legally binding on all member states.
Geopolitical power structures are constantly shifting, and if we want our institutions to remain relevant, they require the flexibility to accommodate such changes. Since the beginning of this century, the United Nations has slowly become irrelevant as a platform for decision-making on the global stage as the powers that initially formed it have come increasingly at odds, crippling its ability to get anything done. Since the year 2000, the UNSC has made 1,442 resolutions, nearly five times as many as the 324 in the first 25 years of its existence, and yet it is unclear if they have all been effectual. Of the UN’s more significant achievements in maintaining international peace and tranquillity, nearly all were made closer to its establishment when there was an active effort made towards ending large-scale warfare. And this was partly successful, the first decade of the 21st century saw fewer deaths worldwide due to conflict than any decade of the 20th century.
But this trend lasted only as long as the great powers of our time allowed. We are now seeing a clear reversal with an international democratic backslide that has seen a decline in the number of democracies for the 6th consecutive year in 2022 as well as seeing the highest number of violent conflicts around the globe since the Second World War, challenging the very cause of the establishment of the UN. The test of any great institution is whether it can withstand the changing leaders and power dynamics that come and go every few decades, whereas the membership of the Security Council is clearly designed in a way that assumes and relies on the dominance of the P5. It was clear from the very beginning that the veto power was designed to ensure that no decisions were made that did not adhere to their interests, a decision that renders the council incapacitated in making any decisions on violence begun by any of the veto powers themselves. In this way, perhaps the greatest problem with the membership of the Security Council is that it was too much of its time, built for and around the power structures that were in place at the end of WW2, and not designed to last much longer after.
Most recently, this paralysis has been most apparent in the inability of the Security Council to take action over the conflict in either Ukraine or Palestine, with two separate resolutions on the latter being vetoed by the United States, a decision that led the UN chief Antonio Guterres to claim that “the Council’s lack of unity… has severely – perhaps fatally – undermined its authority”. Between 1982 and 2007, the US vetoed an additional 32 Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number larger than all the vetoes of the other members combined. Russia has taken a similar approach to the conflict in Syria as the most prominent backer of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, where it has vetoed nearly a dozen resolutions aimed at stopping the war that is now entering its 14th year. In a report assessing the impact of UNSC Resolutions in protecting Syrian civilians, Oxfam declared that all 3 resolutions made in 2014 (February: 2139, July: 2165, December: 2191) calling for an urgent increase in access to humanitarian aid had failed on all counts, with the situation deteriorating considerably in the 12 months that followed.
The rising number of resolutions alongside their decreasing effectiveness suggests that Security Council resolutions have become a political tool among governments that use them as an alternative to taking practical action. It has therefore become a means of complementing power politics, rather than supplanting it. In a well-publicised article titled ‘The Pernicious Consequences of UN Security Council Membership’, Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith argue that temporary members of the UNSC have lower levels of economic growth, become less democratic, and experience more restrictions on press freedom than comparable nations not elected to the Council, an effect that is strongest in nondemocratic countries. This is contrasted with the greater amount of unconditional financial assistance they receive, which allows leaders to keep their voters content with a lower reliance on government revenue.
In ‘Misplaced Blame’, Omar Bahir and Darren Lim find quite different reasons but ultimately come to the same conclusion that UNSC membership is not only ineffective but harms temporary members. This is because of their increased ability to take aggressive domestic policy action without fear of international punishment.
The ineffectiveness of the Security Council and the concerns over its membership have been a topic under considerable for some time now. After the increase in the number of temporary numbers in 1965, UNSC reform was first brought up by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1992 with his publication of ‘An Agenda for Peace’. Even before that, just 5 years after its formation, the UN General Assembly Resolution 377 A was adopted. Better known as the ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution, it resolved that when the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of internation peace and security, this duty would be passed on to the General Assembly which would have the authority to recommend appropriate measure, including the use of armed force when necessary.
The UN as a whole has had quite a few notable successes over the 78 years of its existence. UNICEF, according to its 2015 annual report, had saved nearly 90 million children from hunger and disease. The World Health Organization led the global efforts to eradicate Smallpox and later provided vital assistance to developing nations during the 2019 Covid lockdowns. The annual UN Climate Change Conferences (COPs), with the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Climate Agreement, and regular Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, have been an essential platform for governments around the word to come together and take action on the climate crisis.
It is therefore clear that the problem is not the entire UN, but just the Security Council. It is extremely unlikely that any of the P5 will ever be willing to give up their permanent membership and veto power, without which any kind of reform is impossible. Perhaps the best way to deal with this situation would be to abolish the Security Council entirely, and either create a new agency to deal with issues of security that is representative of the current geopolitical dynamics in accordance with measures that are flexible enough to accommodate future changes, or simply pass on these duties to the General Assembly where being unrepresentative is undoubtedly not a problem.
This article is in no way an invitation to declare that the entire UN as futile. It provides an essential opportunity for developing countries to have their voices heard. At a time when global politics is becoming increasingly hostile, the UN stands out as an institution aimed at uniting governments around the world, only sidelined by its current inability to effect policies due to the limitations of Security Council membership. But once these issues are resolved, it can once again play an important role in conflict resolution and aiding international peace.
Image courtesy of Emmanuel Dunand via Getty Images, ©2013. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
