By Zuleyha Cite
Changing international order shifting to a new phase around the middle-emerging powers and rising powers. New alignments and the demand for ‘reform’ in international organizations are directly related to this change. Fundamentally, the existence of International Organizations (IOs) is a necessity in world politics to create cooperation for sustainable development, facilitate negotiations, and settle conflicts. Indeed, IOs play a functional authority role in international governance depending on their purposes of establishment, recognition by the member states, their legitimacy, and most importantly level of compliance with their decisions. In this context, the United Nations Security Council is one of the most important bodies of the UN, which is the only IO that has 193 member states. Indeed, one of the most effective powers that can legitimize any military operation with its enforcement mechanisms. This characteristic of the UNSC makes its role unique in shaping the world’s future politics and distinguishes itself unambivalently from other IOs. As stated in UN Charter, Chapter V: The Security Council, Article 24; “To ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.“Article 24 definitively underlines the responsibility of preserving world peace and security; however, calls for reform have become louder in recent years, and criticisms of its mechanism and decision-making procedures have increased. Ineffectiveness in responding and managing international crises, inefficiency in promptly acting, and a lack of representation are main issues. While the international order is changing and evolving, the permanent five members of the UNSC preserve their place in it. In this sense, IOs are more likely to transform themselves through orchestration contestation, or structural reforms. Despite the obstacles posed by international conflicts today, IOs are shifting and transforming as a reaction to the emerging trends contexture by rising and superpowers. In this sense, the ongoing international transformation unveils the need for inclusive adaptation of the UNSC reform and the approaches of great powers to engage constructively.
Key problems in the current UNSC mechanism: the post-World War II states are disproportionately favored by the antiquated UNSC structure. Asia, Latin America, and Africa are underrepresented, which undermines the legitimacy of the Council. Lastly, the current framework restricts inclusive dispute resolution and equitable representation. This paper argues that the necessity of the reform and the role that the UNSC plays in shaping the world’s peace and security today, extremely vital for a larger space for negotiations and the promotion of new norms in future global governance. Taking into account the realities of the international order, expanding the council without a veto formula is the only feasible way for a better representation for underrepresented members and a larger opportunity to be part of the UNSC negotiations with a deliberative agenda-setting ability.
The main changes outlined in this policy proposal will reform the UNSC and increase its effectiveness, democracy, and representation. As Khalil and Lavaud assert; “the principal organ entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council’s record since the turn of the millennium has been largely defined by failure and paralysis.’’In this context, the main barrier to the UNSC mechanism’s efficiency is a lack of geopolitical representation. While the UNSC was established in 1946 with a reflection of post-World War II superpowers, it does not reflect today’s changing international order, which causes a limited representation to react to any security crisis timely manner. As Nadin, who is an experts in UN studies argue “Yet, contorted by structural power politics, the council has often been unable to suppress the various threats to international peace and security that have beset the world. This has led many critics to bemoan the council for its failure to act swiftly and effectively to contain international crises.’’
Why is the UNSC Reform important for policymakers? Bringing suggestions to the United Nations is the responsibility of policymakers of member states, and this work is intended to clarify and search for potential benefits of UNSC reform for a better, peaceful, safe, and secure world. This proposal is geared towards urging analysis of limited representation and its caused complications to the UNSC. With this project, the transformation and the change in the council’s working mechanism will make the UNSC more efficient in decision making, which will increase the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions in an international manner.
The United Nations Security Council(UNSC) was established in 1945 after World War II to promote and protect the world’s peace and security. The Council had 11 members in total: 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent member states. Currently, it has 15 members, 5 permanent members(China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Today, the UN has 193 member states; however, the UNSC members a total of 15 which does not represent all UN member nations. In other words, the 1963 UNSC structure did not renew itself in 2025 today’s world. In this sense, member states had a long call for reform over the decades. Calls for renewal started in the 1990s. In 1994, Razali Ismail of Malaysia was made chair of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. The resolutions presented by the Op-Ed working group were rejected because they did not hold the 2/3 of majority however, this initiative led to the exploration of reform ideas. Beginning of the 2000s rising call for reform started again. “At the Millennium Summit (2000), the international community again resolved, “to intensify [its] efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.” In 2003, Annan appointed a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The panel’s report—A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility—affirmed a set of reform principles and presented two models for the membership’s consideration.’’ In 2005 summit, ‘’In the Millennium Declaration, all States resolved to intensify their efforts “to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects” (see General Assembly resolution 55/2, para. 30)’’ and rising resolution drafts from G4(Germany, Japan, India, Brazil), the African Union moreover the other middle power nations such as Türkiye, their emphasis on the reform during annual GA sessions has been one of the most important agendas of international governance. Lastly, the call from civil society is another dimension of the UNSC reform. For instance, The Elders, which was founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007, is a group of independent global leaders who aim to work towards the world’s peace, security, human rights, and sustainable goals. Most of the members have a prestigious leading political and diplomatic background and experience in their professional lives. Members include important names such as Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Helen Clark, Ricardo Lagos, and many more. In 2015, The Elders shared a statement that included four recommendations, calling for (1) veto restraint, (2) a new category of Security Council membership, (3) a stronger voice for civil society through the Arria formula, and (4) a more independent secretary-general.
To sum up, UNSC reform debates have been going on for decades without any progress in consensus; however, an important phase in discussions has emerged. The reform is extremely important to reflect an equitable representation for a better, functional council. Disagreements in proposed resolutions and permanent members’ resistance are the main obstacles standing in the way of the reform. Many crucial reforms came after decades of negotiations, and I strongly believe that UNSC reform will become a reality in the future as a result of this ongoing discussion, the power of diplomacy, and the art of negotiation.
Despite being the most powerful body in the UN system,the UNSC is shaped by a geopolitical reality that dates back to 1945. Reform demands have increased, particularly from the Global South. Through a novel hybrid model that incorporates semi-permanent seats, strengthens regional voice, and improves accountability mechanisms, this policy brief suggests an alternate reform path that would preserve the veto while increasing both permanent and non-permanent representation. The conspectus of the UNSC Reform demand and proposed resolutions history can be summarized under three options. Throughout the history of the reform demand several countries have proposed the abolishment of veto power. This option fundamentally shifts the decision-making making a more legitimate level and provides full equity in the council; however not realistic in practice. Indeed, while it is still challenging to negotiate with P5 members for an alternative reform, it is unexpected for P5 members to act against their interests. On the other hand, I strongly believe this would be a destruction of the UNSC mechanism, and it would cause more tension and less stability. The second option is increasing the number of permanent seats and adding veto power for underrepresented regions. This option is one of the best options if P5 members agree; however, many resolutions, such as A/61/L.69/Rev.1, A/60/L.41, and many more proposed and were not approved by the council or the General Assembly. Adding veto rights enhances the regional balance fully and promotes the dream council; however, the difficulty of negotiations with P5, their strong opposition, and the possibility that to may not provide long-term authority make this option not possible. Last option, which is the option this paper proposes: expanding the council from 15 to 28 members with adding 6 new permanent members(no veto), 4 new non-permanent seats, and 3 rotational semi-permanent seats, 28 in total without a veto formula. This recommendation improves the equitable representation for underrepresented members. It requires strong negotiations with P5 members; however a feasible option in practice.
Increasing the council from 15 to 28 is a reasonable extension, big enough to represent contemporary world circumstances without being too extreme to interfere with functionality. This option expands representation while maintaining a reasonable size for decision-making; adding 13 members makes space for additional permanent and non-permanent arrangements. 6 New permanent states will be non-veto permanent members with full participation rights. This adaptation aims to provide complete deliberative, agenda-setting ability. It aims to bring more diverse voices to the Council, especially during the times responding to urgent conflicts that arise, and to create opportunities for more effective diplomatic negotiations, particularly between veto powers and underrepresented regional members, through broader negotiation opportunities. Furthermore, by providing greater representation in conflict management, underrepresented countries are given a seat, a tool, to bring the change they demand. The recommendation of 6 new permanent seats without a veto formula represents the main regional powers that have historically been underrepresented and avoids the political difficulties of adding more veto-wielding members. These members shall be elected according to the following model: 2 for Africa, 1 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 1 for Asia, 1 for the Middle East/North Africa, 1 for Western representation. The main logic of ‘’permanent but without veto’’ provides influence and recognition without disrupting the power dynamics and aims to avoid P5 resistance.
The second phase of this policy recommends expanding non-permanent members from 10 to 14 to provide more rotating representation, particularly for underrepresented areas, promote inclusion, and increase the opportunities for small and medium states to serve. Lastly, for 6-year periods, creating 3 rotational semi-permanent seats designed to be set aside for regional nations that make significant contributions to diplomacy and peacekeeping. The members will be elected through Regional elections and GA confirmation. The seat rotation shall be according to the following pattern: One seat alternates between Asia-Pacific and Africa, one seat alternates between the Middle East and North Africa, and the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean, and one seat alternates between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. This formula provides a middle ground between short rotation and complete permanency. Aims to stabilize representation for mid-sized but reliable contributors (such as South Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and Indonesia).By rotating every six years and renewable once (up to 12 years). This hybrid working method offers a new involvement for member states while respecting local influence, and it maintains a straightforward structure without diminishing the significance of permanent membership. Lastly, the voting threshold of roughly 60%, or 17 votes out of 28, should be used for adoption of any decision. 17 Votes maintains the two-thirds majority reasoning, which is currently 9 out of 15, ≈ 60%. This formula ensures that resolutions passed by the enlarged Council still need a broad consensus. Another important dimension of this policy recommendation is to create a mechanism for limiting the use of the veto in certain circumstances. Any P5 use of the veto should require a public statement and explanation. This recommendation encourages adherence to the France-Mexico plan and the ACT Code of Conduct to discourage the use of veto power in circumstances of mass crimes.
In conclusion, reforming the UNSC while preserving the veto is the only politically feasible option for the near future. With today’s global governance, it is not realistic to remove the veto power. I create a more credible and equitable Council by expanding its membership to 28, implementing new permanent and semi-permanent representation models, and encouraging regional dialogue without changing the balance of power. A bold but practical framework for improving the effectiveness, inclusivity, and trust of global government is offered by this plan.
About the Author
Zuleyha Cite is a second-year graduate student at the Seton Hall School of Diplomacy and International Relations who participated in the UN Field Seminar course in the Spring 2025 semester.