Reforming UN Security Council could address crisis of legitimacy – but can this be done?
The Council’s structure reflects a post-World War II reality with the veto powers of the five permanent members paralysing decisive action on global crises.
Join our WhatsApp Community to receive travel deals, free stays, and special offers!
- Join Now -
Join our WhatsApp Community to receive travel deals, free stays, and special offers!
- Join Now -
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...
