UN Security Council Reform

Overview

The UN Security Council, a part of the United Nations system set up after World War II, is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet some experts argue the Security Council’s structure undermines its legitimacy, effectiveness, and representativeness, making it unable to address rising threats from conflict, nuclear proliferation, and more. As a crucial member of the Council, the United States could have a consequential voice in pushing for reform, but policymakers first need to decide what reforms, if any, to advocate.   

Students will learn about the history of the UN Security Council and the debate surrounding its reform. 

Students will understand the challenges in the development and management of international institutions and international order. 

The Situation

The UN Security Council, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, is charged with ensuring global peace and security. Formed in 1945 in the wake of World War II, the body brings together representatives of fifteen countries. Five of those members have “permanent” seats, giving them significant influence in determining international decisions. Those permanent members (known as the P5) represent the victorious allies from World War II—the United States, China, France, Russia (then the Soviet Union), and the United Kingdom. The Council’s remaining ten “nonpermanent” seats rotate among other UN member countries. 

The Security Council aimed to address several major flaws of a previous diplomatic forum—the League of Nations—that had made it unable to prevent World War II: 

The UN Security Council has had far more success than the League of Nations. Over eighty years, it has adopted nearly three thousand resolutions, authorized more than seventy peacekeeping missions, and imposed sanctions on dozens of governments, armed groups, and other organizations. And unlike the League of Nations, no permanent member has left the body, even at moments of extreme tension. 

Still, the Security Council faces several hurdles of its own. Although granting permanent membership and a veto helped ensure the participation of the world’s major powers, it has also enabled those powers to grind the Council to a halt when they choose. Russia and China, for example, have used their veto power to stop several attempts by the council to enact resolutions addressing conflicts in Syria and Ukraine in recent years. The United States, meanwhile, has repeatedly vetoed resolutions calling for a cease-fire during Israel’s war in Gaza. Despite the Council’s record of activity, critics argue that vetoes have hindered it from addressing some of the most serious threats to international peace and security.  

Moreover, many critics argue that the Security Council’s structure does not adequately reflect the world today. For one, the world’s major powers include more than just the victors of World War II. Countries like Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan all wield immense influence, but do not have permanent seats on the Security Council. Other critics highlight that the Council’s membership reinforces global inequality; none of the Council’s permanent members represent low- or middle-income countries. And although the Council’s nonpermanent membership is divided among major regional groups, no permanent members represent major world regions like Africa, the Middle East, or South America. 

Those challenges have spurred increasing calls for reform of the Security Council. Some proposals seek to remove or limit the veto power of permanent members, especially in instances where one of the P5 is part of a dispute (such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine). Others call for expanding the council by adding new members, either permanent, nonpermanent or both. Reform is not without precedent. In 1965, the United Nations voted to expand the Security Council’s nonpermanent membership from six to the ten that it has today. 

However, opponents of Security Council reform insist that changing the structure of the Council is risky. One of the primary goals of founding the UN Security Council was to keep the world’s major powers from going to war with one another; gridlock on certain issues could be the price of preserving a larger peace, they argue. Moreover, opponents highlight that reforms would be politically difficult, if not impossible. Any reform would need the approval of two-thirds of the entire United Nations’ membership, as well as each of the P5. Disagreements over the criteria for new membership could stymie reform efforts. Altering veto power would be even more challenging; the current P5 have little incentive to give up their veto power or dilute it by giving that power to new members. Further, adding more members, each with its own interests and agendas, could weaken the Council’s ability to make decisions, resulting in a body that is more representative, but less effective. 

As a member of the P5 and a country with immense diplomatic influence, the United States has a significant voice in debates over UN Security Council Reform. Administrations of both parties have supported proposals for reform, including by extending permanent membership, though not veto power, to countries like India, Japan, and Germany. In 2024, the Biden administration endorsed a plan to add two permanent seats for African nations. But for all its influence, the United States is still just one member of the Security Council. Without support from others, any proposal for reform cannot succeed.  

Meanwhile, the stakes of the reform debate continue to rise. Threats to peace are multiplying around the world, from conflict in Europe and the Middle East to the risk of nuclear proliferation, to growing competition between the United States and China. Whether the Security Council in its current form can manage those threats—even if imperfectly, or whether it, like the League of Nations before, will prove unable to meet the moment, is an increasingly urgent question for policymakers. 

Decision Point

A meeting of the UN Security Council is approaching, and the UN Secretary-General has called upon the members to consider proposals for reforming the body. The U.S. President has convened a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) to consider what position the United States should take on UN Security Council reform—whether it should stand at the forefront of reform and push for a new era, resist modification and recommend maintaining the current status quo, or try an altogether different approach. As advisors deliberate, they will need to weigh both the potential benefits and drawbacks of various approaches to reform and the political feasibility of those approaches. 

NSC members could consider several approaches, including the following: