ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION
As the Second World War raged, the leaders of the United Kingdom, China, the United States and the Soviet
Union, under intense pressure from the press and public, discussed details of a post-war organization. In 1944
representative’s meeting at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC, prepared a blueprint for an international
organization. Towards the end of the war representatives of 50 countries gathered in San Francisco between
April and June 1945 to hammer out the final text that would lay the foundations of international cooperation.
This was the Charter of the United Nations, signed on 26 June by 50 countries. Poland, the 51st country, was
not able to send a representative to the San Francisco conference but is considered an original member.

Purposes of the United Nations

Due to its unique international character and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can
take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its members to express their views. Article 1 of
the UN Charter lays down the 4 chief purposes of UN:

• To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures
for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or
other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the
principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
• To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace
• To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
• To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends .

The current official and working languages of the United Nations are:
Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish
Official languages are the languages in which all official United Nations documents are made available.
Working languages are used for internal communications among staff. English and French are the working
languages of the Secretariat. Some of the other official languages may also be working languages in the
Regional Commissions.
The United Nations (UN) has six principal organs: United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), United
Nations Security Council (UNSC), International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Secretariat, Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC), United Nations Trusteeship Council
Chapter V of the UN Charter mentions about The Security Council (Article 23-32), one of the main
principal organs of UN embodied with the responsibility to maintain International Peace and Security.

Article 23: COMPOSITION OF UNSC

• The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China,
France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The
General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members
of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of
Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other
purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
• The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the
first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security
Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one
year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
• Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.

Article 24: FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security
Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in
carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of
the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are
laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary,
special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in
accordance with the present Charter.

Article 26
In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least
diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be
responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47,
plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation
of armaments.

Article 27: VOTING

• Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
• Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine
members.
• Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine
members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under
Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Article 28: PROCEDURE

The Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of the Security
Council shall for this purpose be represented at all times at the seat of the Organization.
The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members may, if it so desires, be
represented by a member of the government or by some other specially designated representative.
The Security Council may hold meetings at such places other than the seat of the Organization as in its
judgment will best facilitate its work.

Article 29
The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its
functions.

Article 30
The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.

Article 31
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may participate, without
vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council whenever the latter considers that
the interests of that Member are specially affected.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not
a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall
be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay
down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United
Nations.
The UNSC often faces criticisms regarding its organizational structure and the need for its reforms.
Several counties have come forward in demand for equal representation and a permanent position in the
council, the same has been going on since years but there is no change in the composition after all. Many
oppose the membership of the Big Five and have come forth and highlighted the importance of reforming
the council’s membership as many other countries are emerging as great powers in the 21 st Century. The
five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (P5) were granted permanent
membership back in 1945 because of their key roles in establishing the UN and their importance after
World War II.
To now become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a country needs
to meet the following requirements:
• General Assembly support: Two-thirds of the UN General Assembly members must support the
country.
• P5 support: All five permanent members of the UNSC must support the country. The P5 countries
are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
• Veto power: The P5 countries have the power to veto any substantive resolution, including those
that would admit new members or nominate a Secretary-General.

Some criteria that have been proposed for new permanent members include:
• Contribution to the UN: The main criterion for membership is the contribution a country makes to
the UN's work.
• Major economic power: A country should be a major economic power.
• Major military power: A country should be a major military power.
• Substantial contributor to the UN budget: A country should be a substantial contributor to the UN
budget.
• Big nation in terms of population: A country should be a big nation in terms of population.
• Respects democracy and human rights: A country should respect democracy and human rights.
• Makes the council more representative: A country should make the council more representative of
the world's diversity in terms of geography, economic systems, and culture.
Arguably one of the most notorious features of the United Nations, the right to veto has been an integral part
of the UN since its founding. Often a source of much controversy, this exclusive right afforded to the five
permanent members namely The United States, The United Kingdom, France, China and Russia has been
accused of stifling progress and not adequately representing the views of the globe. Alternatively, one can
argue that the right to veto is vital in the effort of the UN to maintain peace amongst the most powerful nations
on earth. Whether or not one supports this element of the UN, it remains a vital part of the global community
and is not likely to go away anytime soon. Apart from executive power, the right of veto is the most important
distinction in the UN Charter between permanent and non-permanent members. Paragraph 3 of Article 27 of
the Charter states that all important decisions of the Council must be "confirmed by a vote of the principal
members". Permanent members use veto to protect their national interests, to support their foreign policy, and
sometimes to promote an issue of particular importance to a country. Since February 16, 1946 when the Soviet
Union (Russia) canceled the first draft resolution on the withdrawal of troops from Lebanon and Syria – the
veto has been recorded 293 times. In early times, the Soviet Union was the largest power, and most of these
vetoes were used to prevent the entry of a new member state. Over the years, the Soviet Union or Russia has
exercised a total of 120 vetoes, nearly half of all vetoes. On March 28, Russia's latest veto was used against
the annual renewal of a panel of experts monitoring enforcement of long-standing UN sanctions against North
Korea over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. The United States cast the first of the 82
vetoes on 17 March 1970. At that time, the Soviet Union had cast 107 vetoes. Since the 1970s, the United
States has used its veto power more than any other permanent member, often to block decisions deemed
harmful to Israel's interests. The US has vetoed resolutions related to Israel 49 times, including a resolution
that would have called for “humanitarian pauses” nearly two weeks in of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza
on October 18, Tel Aviv’s invasion of southern Lebanon, and its illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan
Heights. The UK has used the veto 29 times, the first of which occurred on 30 October 1956 during the Suez
crisis. It has not used its veto power since December 23, 1989 when it, alongside the US and France, prevented
the condemnation of the US invasion of Panama. “The United Kingdom is clear: the veto is a heavy
responsibility, to be used to avoid and resolve conflict. The veto should be used responsibly – and with
accountability,” UK First Secretary Philip Reed said in a statement at the UN General Assembly debate on the
use of the veto last April. France first used the veto on the Spanish question on 26 June 1946, resulting in a
total of 16 resolutions. China has used the veto 16 times, the first on 14 December 1955 by the Republic of
China (ROC) and the remaining 13 by China after all ROC members. Most recently, on March 22, China, in
addition to Russia, vetoed a resolution, which called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, proposed by the US.
Israel-Palestine Issue (2023)

In October 2023, the United States made headlines by vetoing a resolution from Brazil at the UN Security
Council that aimed to establish "humanitarian pauses" to allow aid to reach millions in Gaza. This decision
reflects the US's longstanding support for Israel’s right to defend itself, often overshadowing urgent
humanitarian needs. While 12 out of the 15 Council members were in favor of the resolution, the US’s veto,
alongside abstentions from Russia and the UK, halted any progress. In response, Russia proposed gathering
the UN General Assembly for an emergency session, where resolutions can pass without the threat of a veto.
Although these General Assembly resolutions are not binding, they carry significant political weight and can
shift global perspectives.

Ukraine Crisis (2014-Present)

The situation in Ukraine, which began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, has been another painful
example of how veto power can complicate international relations. Since then, Russia has blocked several
UNSC resolutions aimed at addressing the conflict, frustrating efforts to support Ukraine and uphold its
territorial integrity. Most notably, after Russia's invasion in 2022, it used its veto to dismiss a resolution
condemning its actions, highlighting the challenges of rallying global support in the face of aggression from
a permanent member.

Rohingya Crisis (2017-Present)

The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar showcases yet another aspect of how vetoes can hinder humanitarian efforts.
China has used its veto power to block resolutions that would hold the Myanmar government accountable for
serious human rights abuses against the Rohingya people. This obstruction has prevented the UNSC from
taking meaningful action, revealing how the geopolitical interests of powerful countries can sideline urgent
humanitarian issues.

These examples illustrate just how much influence the permanent members of the UN Security Council hold
in shaping responses to global crises. The frequent use of vetoes can stall crucial efforts, often leaving
humanitarian needs unmet and undermining international law. As discussions about reforming the UN Security
Council continue, the debate over veto power remains a central theme in the quest for better global governance
and accountability. It is a reminder that behind every resolution or veto, there are real lives affected by these
complex political dynamics.
While speaking before the UN on September 21, President Biden highlighted the need to reform the UN
Security Council, both by adding new permanent members and by promoting new norms surrounding veto
privileges. On the same day, President Zelensky urged that Russia be stripped of its veto. Both are right that
the Security Council needs reform for two primary reasons: the Security Council’s membership does not
represent the security needs of the international community, and the veto hamstrings the Security Council as
a problem-solving body, allowing countries like China and Russia to block international actions they view as
disadvantageous. Additionally, the following reasons support the call for reforms:

Geographical Diversity - The Security Council has remained unchanged since 1946, with permanent
members primarily from Europe and North America. This composition does not reflect the current geopolitical
realities. For the Council to be seen as legitimate and representative of the international community, it should
include countries from diverse regions, particularly Latin America, Africa, and additional Asian nations. This
diversity can lead to a more balanced approach to global security issues.

Representation of the Global South - Many UN peacekeeping operations are conducted in the Global South,
yet the nations directly affected have minimal influence over decisions made by the Security Council. By
including representatives from these regions, the Council can ensure that the voices and needs of those most
impacted by conflict and instability are considered, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability in
peacekeeping efforts.

Inclusion of Emerging Powers - Since 1946, countries like Brazil and India have emerged as major regional
powers with significant economic and political influence. Their inclusion as permanent members would not
only reflect the current balance of power but also enhance the Council’s effectiveness by integrating
perspectives from countries that are actively engaged in international diplomacy and development.

Improved Problem-solving Capability - The Security Council is intended to be a proactive problem-solving

body, yet the frequent use of vetoes hampers its ability to respond to crises effectively. By reforming the
structure to allow for more inclusive decision-making, the Council can enhance its capacity to address urgent
global security threats, such as terrorism, pandemics, and climate change.

Veto Power - Veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN, as well as the main cause of inaction on war
crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and
their allies. Amnesty International claimed that the five permanent members had used their veto to promote
their political self-interest or geopolitical interest above the interest of protecting civilians.
Reform is seen as a necessary step to enhance the UNSC’s effectiveness, addressing its flaws to improve its
performance. Without reforms, the UNSC risks becoming increasingly disconnected from the interests of all
UN member states, leading to a crisis in decision-making. The urgency for reform has been echoed by
politicians and academics alike. In 1994, a reform proposal was introduced at the UN General Assembly, but
little progress has been made since then. The 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit called for
comprehensive reforms to make the UNSC more representative and effective. Similarly, a 2007 conference in
Madrid underscored the need for changes. The call for UNSC reform is driven by the need for better
representation and efficiency, ensuring the Council can effectively maintain international peace and security.
Some of the key reform proposals are as follows:

The Group of Four (G4)

Group of Four comprising Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India advocates for permanent seats on the United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) and proposes adding non-permanent members. Their 2005 resolution
suggested increasing the UNSC from 15 to 25 members, including two new permanent seats for African
nations and equal veto rights for all members.
While the G4 seeks a larger global leadership role, they face significant challenges. India’s bid is opposed by
major powers like the US, China, and Russia, with Pakistan particularly resistant due to regional tensions.
Japan’s historical issues with China complicate its candidacy, and Germany's rise raises concerns among
European countries. Brazil, seen as a leading power in Latin America, faces pushback from neighbors worried
about its growing influence.
The G4 emphasizes the need for diverse representation, especially from underrepresented regions like Africa
and South America. However, achieving the necessary two-thirds majority in the UN for their proposal is
difficult, as some countries oppose specific G4 members. Despite these hurdles, they remain hopeful for
reforms that would enhance global representation, though they require support from the five permanent
members (P5) to move forward.

The African Union (AU)

The African Union (AU) has proposed an expansion of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to
include eleven seats: six permanent and five non-permanent. This plan suggests that two of the permanent and
two of the non-permanent seats be allocated specifically for Africa, mirroring the privileges of the current
permanent members. The motivation behind this proposal is to address the lack of African representation in
the UNSC, which is particularly important given Africa's size and population, comprising 28% of the UN's
total members.
However, a significant challenge for the AU is identifying suitable candidates for these permanent seats.
Currently, South Africa, Nigeria, and Egypt are considered the strongest options. Nigeria is notable for its
large population and military contributions to peacekeeping, while South Africa is a key financial contributor
to the UN. Egypt, despite its potential, faces instability due to recent political turmoil.
While the AU's proposal aims to enhance Africa's representation and legitimacy in addressing continental
conflicts, securing support for it remains a major hurdle. The existing permanent members (P5) are likely to
resist sharing their veto powers with new members, making the adoption of this proposal uncertain.

The United for Consensus Group (UFC).

The UFC Group, which includes Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Malta, Pakistan, Spain, Argentina, Canada, and
Turkey, opposes the G4’s bid for expanded permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
They argue that enlarging the permanent membership could create divisions among nations rather than foster
unity. The group believes that regional representation is flawed, as it fails to truly represent all nations within
a region.
Instead of expanding permanent seats, the UFC Group proposes increasing non-permanent member seats from
10 to 20, bringing the total UNSC membership to 25. They suggest raising the voting majority required for
decisions from 15 to 20 and preventing immediate reelection after terms end. This approach aims to promote
equality and democracy while avoiding resistance from the current permanent members (P5).

Additionally, they call for a restraint on the veto power of the P5 for significant issues concerning international
peace and security, seeking to minimize the potential misuse of this power. However, the UFC Group
acknowledges that simply increasing non-permanent members may not enhance the UNSC's efficiency, as the
privileges of the P5 would remain unchanged. They warn that adding more non-permanent members could
complicate decision-making and hinder the UNSC's effectiveness until the UN Charter is amended.

Razali Reform Plan

The Razali Reform Plan aimed to resolve the ongoing deadlock regarding the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) by proposing a multi-stage reform process. Razali Ismail, the President of the General Assembly in
1997, emphasized that the UNSC should not be a forum for endless discussions, as this would damage the
UN's reputation. The initial proposal suggested adding five new permanent seats: two from industrialized
nations and three from developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, along with
four non-permanent members. This plan also aimed to identify specific candidates for these new seats.
Key nations like Germany and Japan supported the idea, but the proposed permanent members would not gain
veto power; instead, there would be a call to limit the use of vetoes in alignment with the UN Charter. For this
reform to pass, it would require a two-thirds majority from the UN General Assembly. Western powers
generally backed the plan, seeing it as a realistic compromise. Former US Ambassador William Richardson
and former British Ambassador John Weston both expressed their support, viewing it as a constructive step
forward.
However, the Razali Plan faced significant pushback from many developing countries, particularly members
of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), who considered it a deviation from existing legal frameworks. They
argued that the process outlined in the Razali Plan was flawed, particularly regarding the provisions of Article
108 of the UN Charter, which governs amendments.
The Razali Plan proposed three levels of enlargement for the UNSC, but its success hinged on achieving a
two-thirds majority from member states. Previous enlargements, like the 1963 addition of non-permanent
members, had adhered to the necessary constitutional requirements, making some critics question the
legitimacy of the Razali Plan's approach. Overall, while the plan aimed to create a more inclusive UNSC, it
encountered substantial legal and political challenges.

UN High-Level Panel Enlargement Proposals (UN HLP)

In September 2003, Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, introduced two models for expanding the
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) based on the High-Level Panel's report on global threats and
challenges.
Model A proposed adding six permanent and three non-permanent seats, increasing total membership to 24.
Model B suggested only increasing non-permanent seats to eight, with seven being renewable and one non-
renewable, but this model raised concerns about fairness in re-election terms. Both models aimed to enhance
representation and provide more states with the opportunity to play a leadership role in global affairs.
Model A sought to broaden regional representation without granting veto powers to new permanent members,
which could create disparities between countries with and without veto rights. In contrast, Model B’s
limitations on re-election could lead to dissatisfaction among regional representatives.
Despite these proposals, the UNSC reform process has stagnated for decades, primarily due to the existing
veto powers held by the five permanent members (P5). This power imbalance has made it difficult to reach a
consensus on any proposed changes. Historical reforms, like the 1965 enlargement, were influenced by
lobbying from Non-Aligned Movement states, which sought fair representation.
The G4 nations advocate for increasing both elected and permanent seats, while the UFC group prefers only
more elected seats. The African Union (AU) emphasizes the need for stronger African representation in the
UNSC. However, the possibility of expanding the council beyond 20 seats faces significant resistance from
current permanent members, who fear losing their influence.
Overall, criticisms of reform proposals focus on the need to include developing nations and adapt to current
geopolitical realities. Key motivations for reform include enhancing geographical representation, legitimacy,
and democracy. Although some suggest that voting reforms could improve fairness and efficiency, any changes
to the UNSC will likely encounter substantial political hurdles.
P5 Veto Power - The veto power held by the five permanent members allows any one of them to block
substantive decisions, often leading to stalemate and inaction. For example, Russia's veto has prevented the
Council from addressing its actions in Ukraine. This power imbalance not only undermines the Council’s
authority but also frustrates member states and diminishes trust in the UN system. This power can also block
the decision of enlarging the membership or designating any country as a new permanent member as well.

Complex Negotiations - Achieving consensus among the P5 for reform is inherently difficult. Each member
has its own strategic interests. For instance, while India’s case for permanent membership is strong, its ongoing
border disputes with China create friction. Moreover, Russia’s opposition to Japan and Germany reflects
concerns about their alignment with Western policies, which complicates discussions around expansion.

Concerns Over Democratic Values - The potential inclusion of countries with poor records on democracy or
human rights poses a significant risk. Many nations proposed for permanent membership may not meet
democratic standards, raising concerns that this could dilute the Council’s credibility and exacerbate issues
related to human rights violations, as seen with current members like China and Russia.

Fear of Regional Rivalries - In regions where rivalries exist, such as in South Asia or the Middle East,
countries may be apprehensive about their rivals gaining permanent membership. This fear can lead to
opposition against proposed reforms, as nations worry about empowering adversaries or altering the balance
of power within their regions.

Resistance to Veto Reform - Proposals to modify or eliminate the veto power face strong pushback from
existing P5 members, who are unlikely to willingly cede their influence. Attempts to create mechanisms for
the General Assembly to override vetoes, for example, would almost certainly be met with a veto from the
very countries whose power is being challenged. As such, discussions around veto reform often stall, leaving
the current power dynamics intact.

Lack of Consensus on Criteria for Membership - Establishing clear, uniform criteria for determining which
countries should be added as permanent members is critical but complex. The international community has
varying opinions on what constitutes an acceptable candidate, making it difficult to reach an agreement.
Criteria might include economic size, military capability, contributions to UN operations, or adherence to
democratic principles, all of which can be contentious.
India’s claim for permanent representation in global governance is rooted in a variety of compelling factors
that reflect its growing significance on the world stage.

First and foremost, India's vast population approximately 1.4 billion people, or about 18% of the global
total underscores the necessity for its enduring presence in international decision-making. This demographic
reality not only positions India as a key player in global dynamics but also brings to light the voices and needs
of a substantial portion of humanity that deserves representation.
Economically, India’s importance is increasingly undeniable. Having recently emerged as the fifth-largest
economy in terms of nominal GDP and the third-largest when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP),
India wields considerable influence in global economic affairs. This robust economic growth not only
enhances its bargaining power but also contributes to global stability and prosperity, making a strong case for
its inclusion as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
India's military capabilities further bolster its claim. Currently ranked fourth in the Global Firepower
Index, India stands alongside formidable nations like the United States, Russia, and China. Its military
advancements, combined with its status as a Nuclear Weapons State since 1998, align it with the existing
permanent members of the UNSC, reinforcing the argument that India deserves a seat at the table where critical
global security matters are discussed.
Moreover, India has a long-standing tradition of contributing to international peacekeeping efforts.
While troop numbers have fluctuated recently, India remains one of the largest contributors to UN
peacekeeping missions, demonstrating its commitment to global stability and security. This dedication to
peacekeeping not only reflects India's capabilities but also its willingness to shoulder international
responsibilities.
India's commitment to fundamental international principles further enriches its case. Historically, it has
championed values such as respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and peaceful
coexistence. As a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India has promoted a vision of a multipolar world
and has been a strong advocate for disarmament, particularly in the realm of nuclear weapons. This principled
stance aligns with the ideals that the UN seeks to uphold.
Achieving reform of the UNSC to accommodate India as a permanent member will require ongoing
negotiation and diplomacy. It will involve addressing the concerns and interests of various stakeholders,
including existing permanent members and other nations. However, India’s substantial contributions,
economic strength, military capabilities, and commitment to international norms make it a compelling
candidate for this crucial role. By securing permanent representation, India could play an even more pivotal
role in shaping global policies and promoting peace and security in an increasingly interconnected world.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was established in 1945 to maintain global peace, but its current
structure is widely viewed as outdated and unrepresentative of today's world. The power dynamics within the
UNSC, particularly the dominance of the five permanent members (P5) — the United States, Russia, China,
the United Kingdom, and France — have been a source of frustration for many nations. These countries hold
veto power, which often results in deadlock and prevents meaningful action, especially in the face of global
crises.
Outdated Power Structure - The P5 hold a privileged position in the UNSC, a remnant of the post-World
War II era. This arrangement fails to acknowledge the rise of new powers such as India, Brazil, and South
Africa, which now play significant roles in global affairs. The council’s lack of inclusivity and representation
is a major flaw, leading to perceptions of bias and inequity.
Veto Power Issues - The veto power has been at the heart of many UNSC failures. P5 members often use it
to block resolutions that do not align with their national interests, even when global consensus exists. For
example, Russia’s repeated vetoes on resolutions addressing its actions in Ukraine, or the U.S.'s consistent
vetoes on Israel-related resolutions, highlight how the veto can prevent progress on critical issues. This
undermines the council's credibility and ability to act as a fair global mediator.
Underrepresentation of Emerging Powers - Countries like India, Germany, Brazil, and Japan, which are
major contributors to global peace and security, remain excluded from permanent membership. This exclusion
not only diminishes the UNSC’s effectiveness but also fails to reflect the reality of the current global power
balance. There is growing consensus that these nations should be included to make the council more
representative of the world’s diversity.
Geopolitical Challenges- Efforts to reform the UNSC are complicated by geopolitical rivalries. For example,
Pakistan opposes India’s bid for a permanent seat, and China is against Japan’s inclusion due to historical
tensions. These rivalries make it difficult to reach the broad consensus required for reform.
Need for Reform - Various reform proposals, such as adding more permanent members from regions like
Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, have been discussed for years. However, resistance from the P5—who
are reluctant to share or lose their veto power—has stalled any meaningful progress.
Conclusion
The UNSC must reform to remain relevant in today’s world. The current structure, dominated by the P5, no
longer reflects global realities, and the frequent misuse of veto power prevents the council from effectively
addressing international crises. Expanding the UNSC to include emerging powers and limiting the use of the
veto could make the council more inclusive, representative, and capable of maintaining peace. Without reform,
the UNSC risks losing its legitimacy and effectiveness in a rapidly changing global landscape. In essence, the
UNSC needs to evolve, not only to represent the voices of all nations more fairly but also to ensure it can act
decisively in an increasingly interconnected world.