Reforming the Security Council for a Stronger United Nations

At the Eighth General Assembly of the United Nations High Discussions last week, a group of international leaders called for a more effective and representative security council. In the words of Finnish president Alexander Stop: “If countries from the global south, from Latin America, from Africa, from Asia, do not get an agency in the regime, it will manage its appearance against the United Nations.”

In fact, the palaces of the council play very clearly today in Gaza and Ukraine. The United States has used unilateral veto to prevent a set of decisions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, allowing to continue the genocide to continue. Meanwhile, Russia has constantly prevented any meaningful response to the war in the war in Ukraine since 2022, despite international condemnation and deep human suffering.

At the Eighth General Assembly of the United Nations High Discussions last week, a group of international leaders called for a more effective and representative security council. In the words of Finnish President Alexander Stop: “If countries from the global south, from Latin America, from Africa, from Asia, do not get an agency in the regime, it will manage its appearance against the United Nations.”

In fact, the palaces of the council play very clearly today in Gaza and Ukraine. The United States has used unilateral veto to prevent a set of decisions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, allowing to continue the genocide to continue. Meanwhile, Russia has constantly prevented any meaningful response to the war in the war in Ukraine since 2022, despite international condemnation and deep human suffering.

But despite the defects of the Security Council, there is no real alternative to that. If it was drifting into a non -relevant, this would simply remove the latest effective global coordination residue. The challenge, then, is not whether to reform the council, but how it does so.

Under this background, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a new global governance initiative. She calls Shi to a more fair and comprehensive multilateral system, which is one without double standards that puts the United Nations in its essence.

To achieve this global vision, the Security Council should enact structural and procedural reform. First, the Council must expand its membership to better reflect the world. Second, a mechanism must develop to reduce the use of mono -side vitamat to prevent one country from standing on an international consensus. Together, these reforms can stimulate the credibility and ability of the Security Council, and convert them from a forum from Gridlock to a more responsive and effective peace -guard.

The current structure of the current Security Council – Permanent members and 10 non -permanent members – are scattered, at best, geopolitical facts at the time of the last group of Security Council reforms in 1965. This structure must be updated by adding a new class of permanent organs.

To this end, all members of the current G-20 (G-20) should be granted a seat in the expanded Security Council. This would eliminate the current ten seats and create 16 always participating seats. These new countries will not contain individual veto, but with the other four members, they can overcome the use of unilateral veto.

This would maintain the institutional legacy of the five original members, while raising the voices that reflect the multi -polar economic and political system today. By doing this, it will enhance the legitimacy of the council, improve regional representation, and include the Security Council with greater firmness in the true architecture of the current world order.

Previous reform efforts have faltered on the issue of how to allocate new seats in the council. Here, the G-21 offers an elegant solution. It consists of a mixture of developed and developing countries. Its use as a basis for reform addresses some missing representation in the global south, with still aware of the permanent power of jobs. Today, G-21 members consist of 85 percent of Global GDP, and has already helped coordinate multilateral responses to some of the most urgent economic challenges in the world. According to this new model, the expanded security council consists of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States, along with the African Union and the European Union, which will have one group vote.

The second reform needed to restore the procedural function. The unilateral veto created paralysis in the Security Council, allowing even urgent humanitarian measures indefinitely. To this day, the veto witnessed the use of a total of 324 times in less than 80 years, at a rate of four vetoes per year. This includes 159 cassation by the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation, 94 by the United States, 32 from the United Kingdom, 21 by China, and 18 by France.

Even direct matters that seem clear, such as accepting new members, can become mired in competition, as the Soviet Union showed frankly early in the Cold War and as the United States explains today to prevent Palestinian membership. Moreover, the cassation effect is likely to be worse than we see. Its existence, which is looming on the horizon, ensures the killing of many decisions behind the closed doors in a private conversation, where those who formulate the documents quietly informed that their decisions will be caught.

Previous reform initiatives attempted to address the veto problem. The French Mexican proposal, which was first offered in 2013, called for the permanent members to comment voluntarily in cases of collective atrocities. The accountability, cohesion and a group of transparency later presented a code of behavior rules, now supported by more than 120 states, which urge P5 countries to curb the veto in the positions of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

But a more fundamental solution is needed. To solve the problems created by unilateral veto, we must weaken them by establishing the transgression of supernatural generations. According to this proposal, if more than two -thirds of the expanded Security Council votes, or 15 of its members, and two -thirds of the General Assembly to overcome the veto of one P5 member, then the relevant decision will pass.

After all, if two -thirds of both bodies can agree to bypass the veto (P5), it represents a wide international consensus. One of the single P5 members should not be able to prevent the UNSC decision approved by all other permanent members, two -thirds of the other 16 assistant members, and two -thirds of the 193 members in the General Assembly.

This new proposal will benefit countries in the global south, which was previously unable to participate in developing international bases and security due to the inappropriate veto from the top. At the same time, there is no reason for the current P5 members of the consequences of this reform. P5 will remain able to impose a binding veto on any decision as long as there are at least a member who agreed. This would provide some reassurance, although it prevented one force from admiration for teamwork and raising the political cost to take the first to be cassified in the first place.

This simple change will have immediate repercussions. From Yemen to Gaza, the door will open to resolve the conflicts that moved from ugly to horrific. Removing unilateral veto would break the barrier, which often kept from the United Nations peacekeeping forces and relief efforts from treating some of the worst tragedies in history.

The United Nations reform will indicate a renewed commitment to the United Nations -Founding Speecha – Peace, Cooperation, Justice, Human Rights and shared responsibility. The result will be a security council more suitable for the present and better preparation for the future.