Global Governance for the Global South: A Case for Greater Country Representation in the UNSC

About the author:

Pranjali Prakash is passionate about international relations, politics and human rights. Her hobbies include travelling and writing. Currently, Pranjali is a 10^th grader at The Overlake School. She aspires to serve her country as a diplomat in the future.

Abstract

This research article addresses the critical issue of unequal representation in the UNSC and its adverse impact on international relations, particularly for countries in the Global South. The paper also discusses several proposed models for reform, evaluating their feasibility and potential impact on global governance. It addresses concerns about the efficacy of a larger council and the risk of increased political deadlock. A detailed case for why and how the UNSC should be reformed to include greater representation for developing countries is presented. The article concludes by advocating for a concerted international effort towards UNSC reform, emphasizing that greater representation for the Global South is crucial for addressing contemporary global challenges in a fair and effective manner. The author calls for the international community to prioritize this issue within the broader agenda of UN reform as it is essential for international peace and security.

Introduction

The United Nations has had one central goal – to maintain peace and security while embracing the diversity of nations and their interests. In recent times, the limitations and efficacy of its decisions and the complexity of addressing glaring disparities in disproportionately representing the Global South have been brought forth (Fassbender, 1998).

The current administrative and policy limitations of the UN are rooted in the stumbling block of vested geopolitical interests wielded by the P5. Their reluctance to cede their existing power has resulted with the UNSC becoming a mere spectator to conflicts. Whether it be the Russia-Ukraine crisis or the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, this key structural flaw perpetuates a dangerous stalemate, impeding the resolution of global disputes (Chesterman, 2006). Hence, in recent times most member states of the UN have unanimously concurred on one critical reform – the expansion of the United Nations Security Council to adequately represent developing countries.

This paper outlines the historical context of the UNSC’s formation. It highlights how post-World War II power dynamics have led to a structure that currently disproportionately favors the interests of its permanent members over those of developing countries. Through qualitative analysis, the implications of this imbalance on global governance – including the challenges it poses to legitimacy, equity, and the effectiveness of international conflict resolution – are examined (Freeman, 2007). Inclusive representation would not only enhance the council’s legitimacy but also improve its decision-making processes by incorporating a wider range of international perspectives and interests (Sharland, 2018). A variety of sources including international law and case studies of previous UNSC interventions have been leveraged to move towards this conclusion.

The Origins of the UNSC

Before delving into the intricacies of reforms, it is vital to discuss the formation of the United Nations Security Council. The UNSC was established following a historical landmark conceived from the aftermath of World War II. The resolution mandated that all member states vest their powers in an international forum (Runde, 2020). In turn, the UNSC was tasked with the monumental undertaking of addressing threats to international peace and security and providing impactful solutions to conflicts. Furthermore, unlike other organs of the United Nations that can only make recommendations to member states, only the UNSC has the sole power to implement policy decisions (Cardenas, 2003).

Unfortunately, the foundational structure of the Security Council has been largely undemocratic from the beginning. It consists of the P5 – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States of America. The P5, a designation reflective of the member countries’ victorious roles in World War II were endowed with the unilateral abrogation of 2 conditions – being permanent members of the UNSC along with the ability to veto any decision. These two powers have allowed them to have a unique influence over the rest of the Council (Royeppen 2016).

Examining the historical evolution of the UNSC in the context of the continued dominance of the P5 has been a subject of great debate, with critics asserting the inequitable power distribution that it inherently implies (Sidhu, 2020). As of 2023, having the permanent members brandish a disproportionate influence within the UN affects the entire international community. The numerical incongruities of having 5 out of 193 member states exercise veto powers over landmark foreign policy decisions has fueled passionate discourse on the comprehensive reforms required to address the growing disconnect between the UNSC’s compositional and multilateral distribution of power.

The Case for UNSC Reformation

The current composition of the UNSC with the P5 exercising veto powers perpetuates an outdated power structure that does not correspond to today’s distribution of global influence. Maintaining a status quo from more than seven decades ago hampers the ability of the international community to act timely, cohesively, and equitably in the face of global challenges. Contemporary geopolitical tensions highlight several compelling reasons for reform.

Firstly, the rotating basis of the 10 non-permanent members means that they are unable to create lasting policy change due to the limits of their two-year tenure. Genuine representation of diverse interests remains elusive within the UN. At the same time, demand for increased representation for regions such as Africa, Asia, and Latin America reverberates within international dialogue. Considering the ever-growing challenges and contemporary issues ranging from climate change, global health pandemics, and evolving security threats, a responsive and effective UNSC is the need of the hour (Weiss, 2011). However, entrenched structures inherited from the post-WWII era, wherein the Council’s interventions are imperative to ensure harmonious international peace and security obstruct timely decision-making. The restricted inclusivity of the UNSC leads to a diverse array of voices, perspectives and people from the Global South that are integral to the decision-making process, being left with a lack of opportunity and inadequate representation.

Moreover, the UNSC’s relevance today is linked to their capability of responding to contemporary challenges that demand swift and coordinated action plans for overcoming diplomatic hurdles. In this regard, the UN’s spectatorship towards current international conflicts will adversely undermine the institution, depreciating its value, impact and credibility. The historical inability of the UN to prevent and resolve crises in several areas where geopolitical interests of the P5 have prevailed imply that one must move towards reforms to reflect a UNSC that isn’t mired in the politics of power, but focused on fostering global security (Narlikar, 2020). In an age marked by interconnectedness and interdependence, the UNSC must evolve to accommodate the aspirations and concerns of nations worldwide, fostering a more equitable and cooperative international order.

This call for reform is not a mere critique of an outdated system but is instead a proactive step towards fortifying the UNSC as a resilient and effective institution capable of navigating the intricacies of today’s interconnected world. Only through comprehensive reform can the UNSC regain its standing as a credible and influential force for global peace and security in the 21st century.

Past Reforms of the UNSC: Actions

As supporting data, there are 2 main case studies to look into. The first, is Mr Kofi Annan’s commissioned report on the UNSC in 2005, that marked the beginning of the discourse for substantive reform in the institution. The administrators of this commission were tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the structural and procedural shortcomings of the UNSC, and the Advisory Panel of Change presented a comprehensive report clearly stating that the privileges granted to the P5 nations no longer align with the geopolitical situation of the 21rst century. Once again, Annan highlighted the underrepresentation of African, Latin American and Asian minorities and provided compelling arguments for the imperative of change. The numbers were compelling, revealing a glaring discrepancy between the council’s current configuration and the demographic makeup of the global community (Urquhart, 1996). This detailed examination of the structural inequities formed the basis of Annan’s call for substantive reforms.

Secondly, the data displayed in the World Summit Outcome Document of 2005 further solidifies the case for UNSC reform. Within this document, all member states of the United Nations, unilaterally agree upon this reform, endorsing the “responsibility to protect” principle, echoing the sentiments of Annan’s report. As Kofi Annan stated during his statement to the United Nations General Assembly (2005): “In particular, I ask them to embrace the principle of the Responsibility to Protect as a basis for collective action against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity – recognising that this responsibility lies first and foremost with each individual state, but also that, if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, the responsibility then shifts to the international community; and that, in the last resort, the United Nations Security Council may take enforcement action according to the Charter.”

With the world population exceeding 7 billion, having simply the P5 no longer resounds with the great majority of the population. Therefore, Kofi Annan’s commissioned report, coupled with the data of the World Summit Outcome Document (2005) act as a call to action, a call for diversity, and a call to reform and as catalysts for change. The undeniable emphasis on modernizing the structural framework from the post-war era and equitable representation with numerical backing impart a meticulous analysis for an irrefutable case for transforming the UNSC to better reflect geopolitical realities of the world today.

Policy Recommendations

Looking back, when the UN was first established, with 50-odd countries, there were simply 6 non-permanent members and then, following the amendment suggested in 1963, it was expanded to 10 non-permanent members with 113 member states then. However, now, how can 15 members take decisions on the behalf of 193 member states? How can there be a representative UNSC, if not a single country from the entire continents of Africa or Latin America is present as a permanent member? How can the world’s largest and most populous democracy be kept away? How can 5 member states abrogating themselves the right to obstruct any decision an overwhelming majority may agree upon? These are the questions, through reforms, that one must work towards answering (Wouters and Ruys, 2005).

Amongst the plethora of potential changes, three pivotal changes stand out in their potential for reshaping the operational framework of the Security Council to eventually meet the evolving expectations of a dynamic global landscape. These three key reforms include:

1. Abolition of the veto power: Firstly, addressing the reform of abolishing the veto power. The very intention of the veto power is to prevent the UNSC from taking actions contrary to the interests of the P5 members, as countless times it has resulted in gridlock and inaction, because a single dissenting voice can stymie decisive measures. Abolishing the veto power would signify departing from a power-centric framework that truly symbolizes the very essence of democracy (Narlikar, 2020).
2. Expanding permanent membership to more developing nations: Secondly, expanding permanent membership to more developing countries. As stated earlier, the P5 members were decided on the basis of their victory as a result of a conflict dating back to more than 7 decades ago. However, in today’s day and age, this power dynamic does not adequately reflect the contemporary geopolitical landscape, where there is not a single permanent representative member from the continents of Latin America or Africa, that each constitute a population of 667 million and 1.46 billion people in 33 and 54 countries respectively. This pressing demand for inclusivity has initiated the proposition to expand permanent membership to more developing nations from Africa, Latin America and Asia, from booming economies and democracies of the future, such as South Africa, Brazil and India (Chesterman, 2006). This reform aligns with principles of diversity, to rectify historical imbalances of power, improve the UNSC’s legitimacy to avoid perpetuating existing disparities.
3. Improvement in governance: The last reform is the improvement of the working methods, to make decisions more responsive and impactful decisions. There must be a call for more efficiency, enhanced communication channels, streamlining the decision-making process and most of all, transparency (Mishra, 2007). By fostering a more collaborative environment, this reform seeks to mitigate the perception of a divided council and enhance its ability to address emerging challenges.

Conclusion

This research contributes to the ongoing debate on UNSC reform by providing a comprehensive analysis of the need for greater inclusivity and by proposing actionable steps towards achieving this goal. Through its examination of the intersection between global governance and the representation of developing countries, the article offers valuable insights for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners interested in the future of international relations and global equity.

The UNSC presently stands at a crucial juncture where the injunction for reform resounds with an unmistakable urgency. Having illustrated the glaring constraints that impede its capacity of adequately representing the Global South, and having delved into its historical evolution and divulging essential reforms, one must gaze to the horizon to navigate these complexities, thereby ushering in a framework for a more inclusive system that serves the collective interests of the international community and responds effectively, by providing impactful resolutions to conflicts and crises. As the UN marks September 2024 by orchestrating “The Summit of the Future”, where the blueprint for its priorities over the next quarter-century, that is until the UN becomes a centenarian as the fulcrum of global governance. Against the backdrop of the Summit, a meticulously-defined timeline to propel these reforms forward must be put in place, as it is henceforth indispensable to further forestall the continual underscoring for the recalibration of international power dynamics.

As Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, the former Secretary General of the United Nations remarked, “Lasting peace can only be built on the premise that all people have equal rights and dignity – regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, social or other status”.

References

• Freeman, Dena. “The Global South at the UN: Using International Politics to Re-Vision the Global.” The Global South 11, no. 2 (2017): 71–91. https://doi.org/10.2979/globalsouth.11.2.05.
• Cardenas, Sonia. “Emerging Global Actors: The United Nations and National Human Rights Institutions.” Global Governance 9, no. 1 (2003): 23–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800462.
• Runde, Daniel F. “Competing and Winning in the Multilateral System: U.S. Leadership in the United Nations.” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24768.
• Sharland, Lisa. “Challenges and Tensions in Policy Formulation.” How Peacekeeping Policy Gets Made: Navigating Intergovernmental Processes at the UN. International Peace Institute, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep19638.8.
• Narlikar, Amrita. “Germany in the United Nations Security Council: Reforming Multilateralism.” German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24812.
• Royeppen, Andrea, ed. “United Nations Security Council Reform.” United Nations @ 70. Institute for Global Dialogue, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep07780.6.
• Sidhu, Waheguru Pal Singh. “India and the United Nations Security Council: Deja Vu?” India International Centre Quarterly 47, no. 1/2 (2020): 1–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27130920.
• Weiss, Thomas G. “A Pipe Dream? Reforming the United Nations.” Harvard International Review 33, no. 1 (2011): 48–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42763445.
• Trent, John, and Laura Schnurr. “Peace and Security: Fixing the Security Council.” In A United Nations Renaissance: What the UN Is, and What It Could Be, 1st ed., 56–70. Verlag Barbara Budrich, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf03xp.7.
• Paterson, Mark, and Kudrat Virk. “Africa and the Reform of the UN Security Council.” Africa, South Africa, And The United Nations’ Security Architecture. Centre for Conflict Resolution, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05138.7.
• Wouters, Jan, and Tom Ruys. “Use and Abuse of the Veto Power.” Security Council Reform: A New Veto for a New Century? Egmont Institute, 2005. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep06699.5.
• Blum, Yehuda Z. “Proposals for UN Security Council Reform.” The American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (2005): 632–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602295.
• Malik, J. Mohan. “Security Council Reform: China Signals Its Veto.” World Policy Journal 22, no. 1 (2005): 19–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209946.
• Mishra, Manoj Kumar. “The United Nations Security Council: Need for a Structural Change?” The Indian Journal of Political Science 68, no. 1 (2007): 145–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41858827.
• Chesterman, Simon. “Reforming the United Nations: Kofi Annan’s Legacy Gets a Reality Check.” Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2006. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep03843.
• Fassbender, Bardo. “Reforming the United Nations.” Die Friedens-Warte 73, no. 4 (1998): 427–42. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23778690.
• Urquhart, Brian. “Reforming the United Nations.” Irish Studies in International Affairs 7 (1996): 7–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30002021.