The start of 2025 finds the world in turmoil, conflict and suffering, with the United Nations feeble and unable to have a positive impact beyond humanitarian relief. The world would stand a better chance of achieving sustainable peace and prosperity if the Security Council were functioning as foreseen in the UN Charter.
The world leaders adopted the Pact for the Future at the Summit of the Future on Sept. 22, 2024. They affirmed their commitment to reforming the Security Council to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable (Action 39) and to strengthening its relationship with the General Assembly (Action 41), working in the framework of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) as a priority and without delay (Action 40).
To assist the relevant negotiations in arriving at substantive results, we propose a two-step approach to Security Council reform, building on five key issues on which the IGN have focused. They are the size of an enlarged Security Council, membership categories, regional representation, veto-related questions and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly.
The first step would be a General Assembly decision in September 2025, when the UN celebrates its 80th anniversary, on the enlargement of the Security Council and the kind and distribution of the new Council seats. This process should culminate within a few years or by the 85th anniversary of the UN in 2030. The second step would be to convene a general conference based on Article 109 of the UN Charter and make a more comprehensive reform of the Council and the UN as a whole by the end of the UN centennial anniversary year, 2045, at the latest.
There have been suggestions for two new Security Council permanent seats going to African states to realize the Africans’ aspiration to be recognized as essential players in the UN. We understand this as a political and emotional rather than a rational call, similar to the longstanding insistence of Germany and Japan, along with Brazil and India (the “G4”), to become permanent Council members. This approach, though, would reinforce the oligopolistic nature of the Council. In an organization whose purpose is to maintain peace and security throughout the globe, the Council members should not only be representative of their own country and region. They should also be accountable to the entire UN membership and the people of the world, for whom peace is a public good and the basis for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and more.
As part of the first step that we suggest, Council enlargement models proposed by various groups should be put before the General Assembly as draft resolutions for voting. If none of the models are adopted, the IGN should set up a drafting group of member states to develop a model for adoption by the General Assembly. Such a model could foresee an increase of the Council membership by 10 five-year renewable seats; the distribution of the 10 new seats to the regions, which would also include the League of Arab States as a region; ways to ensure that regional distribution also allows the representation of key “functional” or “interest” groups of member states, like those of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs); and criteria for the election of countries to the 10 new seats, such as their contributions to international peace and security as well as to other aspects of the UN’s work, and having the trust and confidence of at least two-thirds of the entire UN membership.
As the second step of our Council reform proposal, the five permanent seats could be converted to 10-year renewable term seats without any regional requirement and without the veto prerogative. The same criteria as above would apply for re-election, and a newly created Parliamentary Assembly representing the people of member states could advise the General Assembly on countries’ records. Regional organizations like the African Union, European Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Arab League could also be considered for these five seats.
After such a two-step reform, the UN could start its second century with a Council of 25 members, none of them permanent and none veto-wielding but instead elected: five for 10-year renewable terms, 10 for five-year renewable terms and 10 for two-year nonrenewable terms, with the last two categories subject to geographical distribution.
We appreciate the significant progress made by the IGN so far and call on them to rise above the Westphalian mentality and take the first step toward a more legitimate Security Council that is representative, effective and accountable to all the people of the UN worldwide.
We need a multipolar world, therefore we need a UN without a Security Council but a strong UN General Assembly where –ONE WOMAN ONE VOTE or ONE MAN ONE VOTE– is the rule. Honestly speaking the current UN Security Council reflects the colonial times of 1945 and this has to end in 2025. Who can understand that a country like India with its population size, its military might, a nuclear power is not a member of the UN Security Council meanwhile United Kingdom is a member? Let us stop injustice, double standard and marginalisation if we have to see a UN effective and efficient respecting human rights, equality and justice!
This proposal aims to prevent further expansion of the Council’s oligopolistic nature, addressing the expectations of many member states and their citizens.
However, the suggestion to extend new memberships to regional organizations such as the League of Arab States or common-interest-based organization such as the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) raises questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of their decision-making processes. Concerns remain about the operational viability of such memberships, especially if these organizations fail to make timely decisions, potentially hindering their ability to fulfill responsibilities in emergency cases within the Security Council.
The proposal includes a novel idea to establish a “Parliamentary Assembly” to monitor the performance of long-term members. This mechanism would also apply to the current permanent members, evaluating and reporting their actions to deter unilateral behavior. While the concept is intriguing, debates are likely regarding its authority, composition, and selection methods. Nevertheless, the idea merits consideration through a UN General Assembly resolution.
On the other hand, the proposal presents serious challenges, particularly the second stage of reform. Depriving current permanent members of their privileges of permanency and veto power would likely provoke strong resistance, making its realization highly unlikely. This could even lead to the eventual withdrawal of some permanent members and their allies from the UN, raising the risk of the UN facing a decline similar to that of the League of Nations.
While the proposal contains compelling elements for Security Council reform, a pragmatic and gradual approach grounded in realism and the dynamics of diplomatic negotiation is essential. Given the current international environment, marked by great power rivalry, division, and the rise of populism and nationalism—reminiscent of the pre-World War II era—it is vital to avoid reforms that could destabilize the international order or trigger new conflicts. Reform efforts should focus on achievable measures that prevent the withdrawal of major powers while ensuring realistic progress.
This proposal requires careful selection of actionable ideas while reevaluating impractical ones. Although the intent of the three proponents is undoubtedly to improve the UN, the objective of reform should be to gradually enhance the current system rather than divide the organization. A sustainable and achievable reform plan, informed by geopolitical realities and international circumstances, is imperative.
A good articulated and well_ organized paper which reflects the authors’ mastery on the UN articles etc. but an almost impossible action of convinsing 5 permanent members to accept such new arrangements
Therefore the world has to abolish the UN Security Council because the rule of the JUNGLE where the most powerful will reign cannot continue in a world which needs respect of human rights, equality and justice and because of their veto power the 5 countries called permanent members have made the UN ineffective, inefficacious, impotent and unable to address any crisis in the world where we all are suffering of negative impacts of climate change, wars, famines and pandemics/epidemics (COVID19, Mpox, Ebola, Cholera, Tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Obesity), and all forms of Cancers.
It is a very reasonable proposal. It is also “not political and emotional“ as some others. Regional and “Common interest” representation is of the essence. Australia, for example, may wish to join a larger Group Same goes for some non Spanish speaking Caribbean nations.
I have publicly discussed similar proposals.
The extract I received from this proposal does not include how decisions are taken. A crucial element. Veto power is bad. But always preferable to an atomic bomb.
Gonzalo Perez del Castillo
Former UN Coordinator
Until today, veto power has allowed 2000 pounds Israeli bombs to fall and kill babies, children and women in Gaza! It has allowed mass-starvation of people in Gaza, the total destruction of hospitals in Gaza, etc.. There is no difference between a VETO POWER AND A BOMB? The veto power has to stop, it is not needed because it is a REAL threat posed to humanity!
Dr Bilali Camara
WHO/UNAIDS retiree
Senior Medical Epidemiologist
UNAIDS Award for Human Rights Defender
CARICOM Award for Public Health Excellence
WHO Award for 15 Years of Service to the Americas
The problem with UN is that it was founded ot rotten and totally inappropriate principles: nontransparency, nonaccountability and prosecution immunity. The only possible outcome with such prerequisites is evident: mafia. And enlargement on UN SC has nothing to do with solving this problem.
It is a good proposal. The only thing that i had a second thought is the duration of the terms.
It should be 3 years so to recycle different global affairs of the world represented by the different members
As this whole discussion about the UN Security Council reform has become very challenging because of emerging difficult questions around Africa-India-Brasil-Japan-Germany-Middle-Est, etc.. the fundamental question is do we need a reformed UN Security Council or do we need a much powerful UN General Assembly with decision making and action powers? As recently seen with the war of Israel on Gaza and the veto shield or support of the US to Israel, my conclusion is that the second option with a powerful UN General Assembly is from my perspective the best option as the veto power is a killer option!