Security Council Reform: Words and Action

Despite the opening words of the UN Charter—“We the Peoples of the United Nations”—the United Nations is first and foremost an organization of states. While all are officially equal, it is clear that in practice some states are more equal than others. This is most visible in the UN Security Council, in which the five permanent members have the right to veto decisions. Although the Security Council has been able to function slightly better since the end of the Cold War, the issue of its global representation is now seen as a major problem.

It is not difficult to find a multitude of past and present Security Council reform proposals. Regardless of content, each proposal fails under Articles 108 and 108 of the UN Charter, which state that amendments to the Charter can only enter into force once ratified by the permanent members of the Security Council. Nevertheless, linking the Security Council’s activities more to the outside world and fostering greater global representation would be mandatory. There must be a way to avoid furthering the sentiment that the Security Council is making decisions of international import without having heard important states and regions. Proposals that suggest abolishing or strongly limiting the use of the veto, apart from the fact that they are unrealistic, also present some danger. It could lead to the temptation to act outside the United Nations and the legal system of the UN Charter, as was the case in the present war in Iraq. That war began outside the UN framework and was fueled by frustration about the inability of the Security Council to effectively deal with Saddam Hussein’s regime. If increased unilateralism would be the result of more equitable representation in the Security Council, it would be a futile change.

While talking about the reconstruction of the Security Council and of the United Nations at large, one should, in the meantime, not forget that important issues require immediate and pertinent action. Apart from the global poverty problem, one should think of situations like the violent conflicts in Lebanon and Darfur. While the United Nations took a leading role in the discussion on how to react to the recent Israeli-Lebanese war, its follow up was disappointing. The United Nations was not able quickly to bring together a peace-keeping force for the south of Lebanon, an area riddled with problems of many different natures that are so extremely relevant to many other problems in the contemporary world. It is not difficult to explain why such a force could not be deployed overnight; the United Nations was essentially begging for more participants. An international organization with a bit more self-esteem and urgency should be able to overcome that problem. But by now, the United Nations is handcuffed by its own rules.

The same applies to a situation like the genocide and war in the Darfur region of Sudan. According to the rules of the UN Charter, an intervention is not possible if at least one of the veto-powers makes use of that specific right. It raises the question of to what extent the world can stick to the principle of legality. How about the Responsibility to Protect, as again delineated in the 2005 Summit Outcome document: “Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it.” Although it is clear that there is no rule of international customary law that authorizes states to intervene in case the Security Council is paralyzed, it is also clear that the world cannot ignore crimes against humanity in the absence of legal authorization.

If the Security Council is unable to come to an agreement, states might be urged to find a way out, based on the principle of necessity or the notion of “obligations owed to the international community as a whole,” as expressed in the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. These articles, drawn up by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations, are sent by the UN General Assembly to UN member states for further consultation. Although states will no doubt wish to define their obligations in many ways, whatever that might be, in relation to the Responsibility to Protect, member states should in no case tacitly accept neglecting situations where the world actually burns, like in Darfur, while discussing reform of the United Nations and its Security Council. The matter is perhaps less about really solving the problem of urgent humanitarian crises as whether or not the United Nations and its member states do everything that realistically could be been done to ameliorate such a situation.

Final Observations

Having briefly discussed the mandate of the United Nations, as developed in 1945 and later updated at several occasions, it should not be forgotten that, despite these adaptations to new challenges, many states are of the opinion that the United Nations is not their organization. The United Nations has to deal with multiple conflicting and seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints. On one hand, many states see the UN Security Council as unable to meet their needs and interests because of its mainly Western composition. On the other hand, states like the United States are of the opinion that within the United Nations at large, with the exception of the Security Council, non-Western, often developing states—a majority among the present 192 UN member states—dominate, which forces Western countries to try to impose their agendas upon others.

The United Nations is by aspiration an organization with global coverage, meant to keep the world moving toward progress despite all the controversies and different views and cultures. For that reason, the United Nations should move toward the realization of a value-based international order, supported in theory and practice by the civil society and making optimal use of the capacities of the business sector. In addition, core UN organs like the Security Council should accept the rules they try to impose upon others. Catch words should be evenly applied in that respect: democracy, effectiveness, and accountability. While the UN is undergoing reform, its important functioning should not stop. The United Nations cannot afford to close down. Delivering diplomacy and peacekeeping troops to Darfur—thereby also tackling the risk that states will have to bypass the organization in order to fulfill their own Responsibility to Protect—while also sustaining the efforts in Lebanon and other areas during reform, would be an important first step.