RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

OF LAW, PATIALA

FINAL DRAFT SUBMISSION

TOPIC: NEED OF REFORMS IN UNITED NATIONS

SECURITY COUNCIL

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. SHILPA JAIN HEMAKSHI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 15055
OF LAW, B.A.L.L.B. (Hons)
RGNUL 9th SEM

1|Page
 SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work incorporated in the project report entitled “NEED FOR REFORMS
IN UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL” is a record of work carried out by Hemakshi,
15055, 5th Year under my guidance and supervision.

I. To the best of my/our knowledge and belief the project report

II. Embodies the work of the candidates themselves,
III. Has duly been completed,
IV. Fulfils the requirement of the Ordinance relating to the Master degree of the University
and
V. Is up to the desired standard both in respect of contents and language for being referred
to the examiners.

DR. SHILPA JAIN

SUPERVISOR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW
RGNUL
PATIALA

2|Page
 STUDENT CERTIFICATE

I declare that the work presented in this project titled “Need For Reforms in United Nations

Security Council”, submitted to Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law is my original work. I

have not plagiarized or submitted the same work for the award of any other degree. In case this

undertaking is found incorrect, I accept that my degree may be unconditionally withdrawn.

Hemakshi
15055
VTH YEAR
B.A. L.L.B.(Hons).

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO DESCRIPTION PAGE NO

1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. ISSUES FACED BY SECURITY COUNCIL 6
3. STEPS TAKEN BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO 9
USHER IN REFORMS OVER THE COURSE OF
TIME
4. IMPORTANT REFORM MODELS SUGGESTED TO 16
REFORM THE COUNCIL
5. INDIA AND UNSC REFORMS: CASE STUDY 19
6. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 25
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 28

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Security Council is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations. This organ is responsible
for maintaining international peace and security, accepting new members to the UN, amending
UN Charter, authorizing military actions in order to maintain peace and security.

The Security Council is often described as "Enforcement Wing" of the United Nations. Its primary
responsibility is to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council is a smaller
body than General Assembly. Originally it consisted of eleven members, five permanent
members(UK, USA, USSR, France and Russia) and six non-permanent members. In 1965 the
strength of non-permanent members was raised to ten. Thus total membership of the Council was
raised to fifteen. The General Assembly elects non-permanent members for two years. The non-
permanent members are not eligible for immediate re-election. While electing non-permanent
members, the General Assembly ensures that different geographical regions get equitable
distribution.

Each member of the Council has one vote. Each of the permanent members has the right of Veto
on all substantive questions. Abstinence does not constitute a negative vote nor does absence. A
valid decision on all 20 substantive questions require ten votes including the votes of the
permanent five. On procedural matters the affirmative votes of any 10 members are sufficient.

• POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

The functions and powers assigned to the Security Council under the charter are the following:

o to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of
the UN;
o to investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to international friction and to
recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
o to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression and to recommend
what action should be taken;
o to call on members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of
force in order to prevent or stop aggression;
o to take military action against an aggressor; and
o to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments.

• WORKING

5|Page
o “Every year, the Security Council revisits its allocation of chairmanships of its subsidiary
bodies, a task entrusted to elected Council members.
o Beyond permanency itself, the veto power is probably the most significant distinction between
permanent and non-permanent members in the UN Charter. Article 27 (3) of the Charter
establishes that to be adopted, all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with “the
concurring votes of the permanent members”.
o The voting procedure of the Security Council is governed by Article 27 of the UN Charter and
Rule 40 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure. Article 27 provides that decisions of the
Security Council are made by an affirmative vote of nine members, whereas each member has
one vote. The Charter distinguishes, however, between votes on “procedural matters” and
votes on “all other matters”.
o Arria-formula meetings are informal meetings convened at the initiative of a member or
members of the Security Council in order to gather information from individuals or
organisations with knowledge of developments on the ground.
o Innovation and adaptability have been among the distinctive features of the Security Council.
Some innovations take time to develop; some are invented literally on the spot. The informal
interactive dialogue format is one of the working methods that emerged quite quickly. In this
table we seek to compile all informal interactive dialogues to date, based on the sources
mentioned above and interviews conducted by SCR.
o A visiting mission has been a tool the Council has used for a number of purposes, including
preventive diplomacy, gathering first-hand information, supporting peace processes and
mediation. Until the end of the Cold War, the Council undertook fewer than a dozen missions;
in the period since, a visiting mission has become a more frequent working method.
o Under Article 24(3) of the UN Charter, the Security Council must submit an annual report to
the General Assembly for its consideration.”1

Security Council is the most significant organ of United Nations. However, over the course of
time it has been faced with the question of reforming itself. This project shall discuss this in detail.

• STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Over the course of time, Security Council has been facing demands from the members of UN to
reform itself. This demand has been there from the very inception. Geopolitics is dynamic in

1
UN Security Council Working Method,https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-
methods/, last visited on 22nd Oct 2019 at 9 PM
6|Page
nature. As a result the power balances and influence of countries over the world order change
from time to time. Due to this, there has been a demand to change the composition, both permanent
and non-permanent membership from time to time. Besides this, the Council has been accused of
lacking representative character especially from Africa and Latin America. These issues have
taken the form of full-fledged controversies over the course of time.

• RESEARCH QUESTIONS
o What initatives have been taken by taken by member nations to reform the council?
o Have these initiatives been truly effective?
o How could the working of council be made more efficient in accordance with changing times?

• RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
o To establish the issues faced by the council since its inception.
o To establish the initiatives taken and attempts made by member nations of UN to reform the
council

• SCOPE OF STUDY
o Books of International Law
o UN Reports
o Research Papers

7|Page
 ISSUES FACED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL

With changing times, it is necessary that every institution or organization must bring about
changes in them to keep pace with changing social and political scenario. United Nations is no
exception to this. Its organ, Security Council is primarily responsible for maintaining peace and
security. In order to fulfil such a significant role, it has to ensure that its working is efficient and
in accordance with the changing times. Since its inception, the Security Council has been faced
with demands to expand it and the privileges and powers accorded to permanent as well as non-
permanent members.

“Within the present context of liberal democratization, the concept of permanency combined with
veto power does not fit into the current idea of equality among states. Additionally, the rise of
new countries and decline of some of the current P5 have further intensified the debate to reform
and expand the UNSC. Four key points militate for expansion of the UNSC: regional
representation, size of the council vis-à-vis overall membership of the United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA), inequality among members of the UNSC, and accommodation of those states
in the decision-making process at the UNSC that contribute more to the U.N. financially and
militarily. For all of these reasons, there is a wider consensus among all the member countries
about reform, and more particularly the expansion of the UNSC. This unity breaks down almost
immediately over the question of just how to affect the expansion.”2

• REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

The current UNSC membership is considered to be not truly representative in character. It is

dominated mainly by those countries which had a significant influence after the end of World War
II. At the time of the U.N.’s formation, Africa, Latin America, and Asia were only marginally
represented. Only three countries represented Africa and the same number of states represented
Asia while signing of the charter. None was represented at the Council.

Within decades of the establishment of the U.N., the U.N. membership grew and countries majorly
from Asia and Africa became its members. This rapid rise of representation from these continents
was mainly due to decolonization and as a result of which these countries became independent.

“The idea of equitable representation among various regions at the UNSC has taken centre stage
in the reform process of the world body. Distribution of permanent seats among all regions is a
key factor that has driven the reform and expansion process of the UNSC. For example, the leaders

2
Aamir Hussain Khan, UNSC’S Expansion: Prospects for Change and Implications for the Regions and the World,
NSN 7540–01-280-5500.
8|Page
from Africa demand representation at the decision-making forum because the continent is not
represented at the council in the permanent category. Additionally, the African continent has
more often remained the subject of the UNSC resolutions pertaining to the use of force and
deployment of military missions for maintenance of peace and security. The African continent
comprises 54 countries but is not represented at the council, which makes the council’s authority
and legitimacy questionable. If these regions are excluded from the decision-making process, their
lack of cooperation in implementing the UNSC resolutions pertaining to their region would
impede the achievement of desired objectives. Therefore, these countries strongly argue that the
African continent be given meaningful representation in the expanded UNSC in both permanent
and non-permanent categories.”3

• SIZE OF AN ENLARGED COUNCIL AND ITS WORKING

It has been argued that the small size of the UNSC in comparison to the overall membership has
undermined the council’s authority and legitimacy the powerful middle-tier countries for
implementation of its resolutions and decisions. The rising powers that hold huge political,
economic and military influence within and outside their regions, if included in the decision-
making process at the UNSC, would significantly contribute to the maintenance of peace and
security in the world.

“Proponents of reform, such as the G4 and the AU, argue that the small size of the UNSC has
negatively affected the efficiency, authority, and legitimacy of the council as a whole. They
maintain that the council’s decisions lack broader support due to the absence of the current
regional and world powers, which substantially contribute to the U.N., economically and
militarily. If these countries are not included in the executive body then they may reduce or block
funding to the council, which will negatively impact the functioning of the world body.”4

• CATEGORIES OF MEMBERSHIP

The permanent and non-permanent members enjoy different powers and privileges. The nations
whose influence in world politics is on a rise in recent years such as Japan, Germany, India etc
demand expansion of the council. These rising powers who don’t have any permanent
representation feel frustrated. Their view could be summarized as follows:

“The diversity of the United Nations’ membership and ambitious nature of its mandates make it
highly likely that some constituencies will be seriously disappointed with its power-sharing

3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
9|Page
arrangements and/or its accomplishment at any point in time. Persistent disappointment or
feelings of disenfranchisement have often led to calls for reform.”5

The influence and power enjoyed by the permanent five is comparatively more and substantial as
compared to non-permanent members. By the time non-permanent members acquaint themselves
with the work procedure of the council, their two-year term is complete. Furthermore, the
permanent members each maintain a huge bureaucracy and staff, which the non-permanent
members cannot match.

According to Caron, “The staffing capability of the permanent members within the Council allows
them disproportionately to influence the outcome of its proceedings.” 6

Because the non-permanent members remain on the council for a brief period, these countries do
not maintain a large staff and matching diplomatic weight. This inherent disadvantage of non-
permanent members allows the P5 to significantly influence the outcome of council’s decisions.

• QUESTION OF VETO

“One of the issues that reflected the compromise reached to satisfy such interests of the super
powers in the new system of international governance was the right exercise the veto in the
Security Council. The existence of the veto right was so important to a degree that some super
powers associated their participation in the new system with the right of a veto. In this context, it
was routinely expressed that “small nations should not be allowed to complicate the supreme task
of keeping the peace”. The US insisted on such powers to maximize the chance of achieving the
approval of the Congress and avoid the same scenario that occurred earlier regarding its
participation in the League of Nations. Similarly, the Soviet Union maintained an absolute
position in relation to having an unrestricted power of the veto to a degree that it was one of the
main key points that were going to determine their participation in the UN.”7

5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Dr. Saleh Al Shraideh, “The Security Council’s Veto in the Balance”, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization,
ISSN 2224-3240, Vol.58, 2017.
10 | P a g e
 STEPS TAKEN TO USHER REFORMS IN SECURITY COUNCIL OVER
THE COURSE OF TIME

One of the pressing issues faced by United Nations over the course of time is need to bring about
changes, transformation and reforms in its one of the most important organs i.e. Security Council.
Various reasons have been attributed to this demand raised by the international community.
Firstly, the UN Charter was signed in 1945. Since then, world has witnessed major political, social
and economic transformations. As a result, it has been expected that the global body and its organs
would also undergo transformations to keep up with changing times.

With regard to Council, several concerns has been raised by the members from time to time. These
include representation from continents such as Africa and Latin America. Also, with passage of
times besides the permanent five, there are several countries which have amassed massive political
influence on global platforms such as Germany, India etc. there have been demands for expanding
the body.

These issues have been taken into consideration by the General Assembly and several reform
measures have been introduced from time to time since its inception. Here is a look at the measures
introduced, reforms suggested over the course of time:

• 1945-1965

Initially, there were 11 members in the Council: 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent. In 1963, the
strength of UN has increased to 113. It was felt that there was inadequate representation in Council
when compared to the total strength of Assembly. As a result, in the same year on an initiative by
44 African and Asian countries, the strength of the non-permanent was increased to 10 by way of
amendment carried out with Article 108 of UN Charter. This lead to certain changes in Allocation
Agreement of 1946 which determines the constitution of non-permanent membership of the
Council. After the 1963 amendment, Asian and African nations were given 5 seats, Latin and
Caribbean two, Eastern European nations one and Western European and other states were given
two seats. 97 members voted in favor of the amendment whereas 11 voted against it and 4
abstained.

• 1965-1992

In 1971, Taiwan left the United Nations, after the General Assembly recognized People’s
Republic of China as the members of United Nations. It also took over the permanent membership
in Security Council.

11 | P a g e
By 1979, the membership of United Nations has risen to 152. As a result, various members
especially the developing nations demanded that the strength of the Security Council should rise
from 15 to 21. Through this expansion, Africa would have five, Asia four, Latin America and
Caribbean three, Eastern Europe one, Western European and other nations two non-permanent
members. However, this proposal did not materialize in the Assembly.

In 1992, on an initiative by Japan and 34 other developing countries, members of the UN were
asked to give written views on Council membership and possible expansion. On the basis of these
replies, it was viewed that the members viewed Japan and Germany as the potential candidates
for permanent membership of the Council. The possibility of expansion and the rights associated
with these potential candidates formed the basis for future debates.

• 1993-2002

A General Assembly resolution of 3rd December 1993 established “Open Ended Working Group
on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of Security
Council and Other Matters Related to Security Council”.

The reasons behind these resolution were as follows:

1. An increase in membership in United Nations especially that of developing countries

2. Change in geopolitical situation especially after the end of Cold War
3. To maintain efficiency of working of Council.

There were extensive discussion on the issues of equitable representation, effective and efficient
functioning, decision making etc. However, no conclusions were drawn. The Working Group
presented a formal and short report. This report was described as insubstantial and weak.

The Working Group continued its working on the matter. Between January 1994 and September
1995, held meetings and consultations. The Vice- Chairman prepared internal non-papers on two
categories of reform elements i.e. Cluster I and Cluster II. Cluster I was concerned with expansion
of Security Council, equitable representation, categories of membership, voting procedure.
Cluster II was primarily concerned with improving the working and efficiency of Council,
improving its relationship with other stakeholders, its relationship with General Assembly etc.
several interested countries submitted their own models and proposals. These models and
proposals were in conflict with that of those formulated by the Vice Chairman. For a long time, it
was anticipated that there would be no agreement reached and no Second Final Report will be
published. However, a Second Report was published but it was concluded that no conclusions

12 | P a g e
could be reached with regard to non-papers. But, the Vice Chairman noted that the members
should work towards next stage i.e. negotiations and try to crystallize the reforms that they seek.

The Assembly adopted the final report in December 1995. It recommended the Working Group
“continue its work, taking into account, inter alia, the progress achieved and the views expressed
during the Fiftieth Session of General Assembly, including the Special Commemorative Meeting
of the General Assembly on the occasion of Fiftieth Anniversary of United Nations”.8

Between October 1995 and October 1996, the reform discussions showed certain progress but
became politically colored. Three factors contributed to this: 50th Anniversary of the United
Nations, Debates at 51st Session and the presentation of Final Report by Working Group in
September 1996. This report discussed extensively the reforms in the Council.

On 24th October 1995, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the occasion of 50th
Anniversary of United Nations. It stated that:

“The Security Council, should, inter alia, be expanded and its working methods continue to be
reviewed in a way that will further strengthen its capacity and effectiveness, enhance its
representative character and improve its working efficiency and transparency; as important
differences on key issues continue to exist, further in-depth consideration of these issues is
required”.9

In the debate in 51st Session, Japan and Germany received extensive support as potential
permanent members of the Security Council from other members. None of the other members
were able to garner such support.

“The Third Final Report, consisting of 36 paragraphs, presented concrete proposals. For the most
part, it followed the Working Group’s working programme and dealt extensively with the
following elements considered most essential for the following Council reform: transparency and
working methods of the Council, size and compensation, decision making, including the Veto,
amendments to the Charter, periodic review of the Charter.”10

“In 1997, the President of the General Assembly and chairman of the Working Group, Razali
Ismael of Malaysia, put forward an ambitious three-stage reform plan which provided for the
enlargement of the Security Council from 15 to 24 members, including the addition of five new
permanent members. Although eventually unsuccessful, this innovative proposal deserves

8
Ingo Winkelmann, “Bringing the Security Council into a New Era- Recent Developments in the Discussion on the
Reform of Security Council”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume I.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
13 | P a g e
mentioning because its use of an intermediary structure inspired later proposals, and its failure
had consequences for the reform process that followed.”11

• 2003-2006

In 2003, then Secretary General Assembly took the following position with regards to Security
Council in General Assembly:

“I respectfully suggest to you, Excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty of
reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so. If you want the Council’s decisions to
command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of
its composition with greater urgency.”12

Later that year, the Secretary General appointed “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
Change”, Annan. It signified his intent to bring about extensive reforms in the Council. The Panel
was asked to analyse and assess future threats to peace and security and to evaluate existing
approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including Security Council reform.

In December 2004, the Panel released their report “A More Secure World: Our Shared
Responsibility” (A/59/565). It included 101 recommendations for change and for reform of the
Security Council. It proposed two models A and B both of which suggested expanding the Council
to 24 members. Model A proposed adding six new permanent seats, but with no veto power, and
three new two-year term elected seats. Model B created a new category of eight seats, renewable
every four years, and one new two-year non-renewable seat.

“On 16 February 2005, the Coffee Club (Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Kenya, Algeria, Italy,
Spain, Pakistan and South Korea) adopted a document “Uniting for Consensus”, which
subsequently became the name of the group. The document was originally drafted by Italy, and
the new name was meant to convey that the group favored a broad negotiated solution. The G4
(Germany, India, Brazil and Japan), on the other hand, argued that significant changes could take
place through a vote and that seeking consensus or a broad negotiated solution were just excuses
for inaction. However, the Uniting for Consensus group maintained a firm stand on this issue, and
they were later joined by Qatar, Turkey, Ghana, Costa Rica, Ghana, Costa Rica, Canada, Morocco,
San Marino, United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, and the representative of the Arab League. The

11
Jonas von Freiesleben, “Reform Of The Security Council”
12
Ibid.
14 | P a g e
document issued in February 2005 represented a common position on expansion of the Security
Council that conformed with Model B as proposed by the High-Level Panel.” 13

In March 2005, in his follow up report “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and
Human Rights for All”, Secretary General endorsed the Hugh Level Panel Report and
recommended the most comprehensive reform proposals addressing issues such as financing for
development, terrorism, replacing the Human Rights Commission and reform of the Security
Council. Annan urged the membership to adopt all of his proposals as a package and reach
consensus in time for the 2005 World Summit. However, no consensus could be reached by the
various groups by the time of the Summit.

• 2006-2008

Post the World Forum Summit, a group of five small countries Switzerland, Singapore, Jordan,
Costa Rica and Liechtenstein formerly known as Small Five (S5) in March 2006 submitted a Draft
Resolution aimed at achieving a more accountable and transparent Council. The draft asked the
Council to consult with all Member States on resolutions and requested that the five permanent
members explain every veto to the General Assembly. However, these suggestions received stiff
resistance especially from the permanent five members.

Later, the Working Group again resumed their discussion and covered the following issues: the
size of an enlarged Security Council, the categories of membership, the question of regional
representation, the question of the veto, the working methods of the Security Council & the
relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The president of General
Assembly appointed five facilitators to assist her in compiling a report.

After conducting extensive consultations the five facilitators submitted their combined report on
Notions on the Way Forward on 19 April 2007. Recognizing that neither the African position, nor
the G4 or the Uniting for Consensus positions had enough support to pass a General Assembly
vote the facilitators attempted to reach a consensus amongst these groups. The report laid down
the following suggestions:

“1. Extended seats that could be allocated for the full duration of the intermediary arrangement,
including the possibility of recall.

13
Ibid.
15 | P a g e
2. Extended seats, which would be for a longer period than the regular two-year term, but with
the possibility of re-election. The length of the terms as well as the re-election modalities should
be decided in negotiations.

3. Extended seats, which would be for a longer period than the regular two-year term, but without
the possibility of re-election. The length of the term should be decided in the negotiations.

4. Non-permanent two-year seats with the possibility of immediate re-election.”14

Member States gave varied response to the report. Some were of the view that certain suggestions
were all together new and were not discussed at all previously. Some countries were of the view
that above mentioned proposals did not create a scope for creation of additional permanent seats,
one of the long standing demands of various countries.

In May 2007, Sheika Haya, President of General appointed two new facilitators who could carry
forward the negotiation process further on the basis of proposals given in the report of the five
facilitators.

In 2007, the two facilitators gave their report. It laid down a transitional arrangement to be
considered by the members. They suggested that the assembly should move forwards in the next
stage and begin negotiations and also laid out the negotiable issues in the report.

In July 2007, the Chairman of the Working Group released a draft version of progress report,
including a concise resolution. In brief, the report summarized the efforts made by the Working
Group during the year and made some modest recommendations on how to proceed during the
next General Assembly session. By adopting the report and resolution, the General Assembly
would have recognized the efforts of the Working Group and formally placed the issue of Security
Council reform on the agenda of the 62nd session of the General Assembly.

• 2008-till present date

On September 2008, General Assembly through a decision paved the way for opening up of Inter-
Governmental Negotiations. It was demanded that any decision with regard to reform should be
taken on the basis of consensus only. However this demand was rejected and it was agreed that
any decision would be taken on the basis of ‘widest possible acceptance’.

14
Notions on the Way Forward (A/61/47, SUPAnnex I) on 19 April 2007.
16 | P a g e
The efforts towards creating the widest possible acceptance led to development of ‘L69’. L69
consists of 40 member states: among them G4 members Brazil and India, 11 African countries,
small island states, CARICOM and some Latin American states.

Besides this, a Committee of 10 African countries ‘C10’ was formed which would represent
African interests in the negotiations and would make efforts at reaching an agreement with other
interest groups. The C10 consists of Algeria, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya,
Libya, Namibia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Zambia and represents the five African
regions.

“On the working methods, a group called ACT (Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency)
was created with 20 countries initially joining the group by invitation, with Switzerland as focal
point. It concentrates on the working methods of the current - not expanded - Council, reflecting
widespread scepticism that the reform will happen anytime soon. Arguably, some pressure from
ACT has contributed to improved working methods, but much still remains to be achieved. As a
group it is not currently active in the IGN and ACT is believed to experience internal divisions
similar to the other groupings.”15

• CONCLUSION

Reforms in the Security Council has been a long standing demand of the members. From the very
beginning, the countries have demanded it be reformed in one way or another. However, this has
turned out to be an extremely slow process and still there is a long way to go to achieve the desired
outcomes.

15
Vesselin Popovski, “Reforming and innovating the United Nations Security Council”, Commission on Global
Security, Justice & Governance, http://www.globalsecurityjusticegovernance.org last visited on 21st October 2019
at 5:00 PM.
17 | P a g e
 IMPORTANT REFORM MODELS SUGGESTED FOR REFORMING
SECURITY COUNCIL

Very soon after the establishment of Security Council, demands have been made over the course
of time to reform it for one reason or another. It has been argued that keeping in consideration the
dynamics of society and politics and to promote inclusiveness and diversity, there was a need to
bring about reforms and expansions in council. As a result, several committees, commissions,
power blocs have over the course of time suggested various comprehensive reforms to bring about
a change in Council in order to maintain its relevance and influence. Some of the most important
reform models which have the potential to bring extensive reforms in the Council are being
discussed below:

• HLP MODEL
• G4 MODEL
• AFRICAN UNION MODEL
• UFC ENLARGEMENT MODEL

1. HLP MODEL

This model was proposed by UN High Level Panel in its report “Threats, Challenges and
Change”. The report proposed two models: Model A and Model B. Model A proposed for the
enlargement of both permanent and non-permanent membership. It suggested addition of 6 non-
permanent members and 3 permanent members. On the other hand, Model B suggested an addition
of 9 non-permanent members. Out of these 9, 8 would have renewable seats and one would have
non-renewable seat. Besides this, it was proposed that these non-permanent members would have
longer tenures of 4 years as compared to current 2 years and they would also be eligible for
reelection.

This model has been criticized on various grounds. Firstly, the panel has been unable to identify
the possible candidates for permanent membership. Secondly, the model has been unsuccessful in
addressing the divide between developed and developing countries and also it has not addressed
the issues of geographical imbalances. Thirdly, the model has not clarified its preferences for one
model over another. It has sparked rivalries between the nations and created divisions. Fourthly,
the model has not addressed the issue of veto powers to permanent members which is the most
significant issues faced by the council. It has left the question of veto powers for new members
unanswered too.
18 | P a g e
2. G4 MODEL

G4 comprises of Brazil, Japan, India and Germany. These are the emerging economies who are
on their way to become developed and have begun to play a crucial role in global arena. Thus,
they have contended that they too should have a voice in the Security Council. In a draft
resolution, the G4 proposed the expansion of both permanent as well as non-permanent members.
In a joint resolution of 2005, they proposed that there be an increase of 6 permanent and 4 non-
permanent members. Out of these six permanent members, 4 would be G4 countries and the other
two would be from Africa. The question of veto power for the newly added permanent members
has been left unanswered. Initially, the G4 demanded veto power along with permanent
membership. However, eventually they dropped off this demand in order to secure the support of
permanent members.

G4 members have faced opposition from several countries for their bid as permanent members.
The most significant amongst them is Canada. The nation is of the view that this model would not
bring about reform in true sense. It would only serve the interests of these four countries only. It
considers this expansion undemocratic.

This model has been meet with failure as they have failed to reach a consensus about which
country they should support for permanent membership For example, the United States, France,
and the United Kingdom support Japan, Germany, and India. Similarly, China supports Germany
and Brazil but opposes India and Japan. China has even indicated it would block, if needed,
Japan’s entry as a permanent member through the use of its veto power.

3. AFRICAN UNION MODEL

This model suggested by the African Union has proposed addition of 6 permanent and five non-
permanent members. Amongst these seats, it has demanded that two permanent and two non-
permanent seats be reserved for Africa on the ground that it is underrepresented in the forum.
They have also demanded that permanent members be given veto powers. However, they are
vague about potential candidates for permanent membership.

The African Union enlargement model has generated two major controversies: an inflexible
position on demand of veto power, and the selection of its permanent members on a rotational
basis.

The AU has remained rigid on the question of providing veto powers for newly added permanent
members if their model has to be enforced. This demand has been opposed by permanent five

19 | P a g e
members. As a result they have reached at a stalemate and in various instances the African Union
members have blocked several reform proposals introduced in General Assembly.

“Second, the AU’s demand for selection of its permanent members on a rotational basis is both
unrealistic and flawed. For example, a member country of the AU can opt out of its membership
because, unlike the U.N., the membership of the AU is not mandatory. Additionally, other regions
such as Asia and Latin America have no single representative organization. Likewise, it is not yet
clear what will happen if a permanent member from Africa or any other regional organization
casts its vote against perceived interests of its region.”16

4. UFC ENLARGEMENT MODEL

Uniting for Consensus is a movement that developed in 1990s in opposition to the reforms and
expansion measures suggested by G4. Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and Egypt were the founding
members of this movement which was popularly called as “Coffee Club”. Later the movement
went on to include 50 members from Asia, Africa and South America. They are of the view that
the model proposed by G4 is against the values of sovereignty and equality enshrined in UN
Charter. It is of the view that a consensus should be reached at before bringing about any reform
in the Council.

Though these countries agree that there is a need of reforms in the Council, but they are of the
view that the expansion of seats should be with regard to non-permanent membership.

“Unlike the G4, the UFC group is opposed to putting the enlargement process to vote. Instead, the
group supports consensus-based enlargement of the UNSC and maintains that voting on the
enlargement issue would be divisive for the international community. The group, though small in
number, has achieved significant success in delaying the expansion process thus far. The group
argues that the undemocratic structure of the UNSC cannot be addressed through an increase in
the permanent category; rather an increase would only make it more undemocratic.”17

16
Aamir Hussain Khan, UNSC’S Expansion: Prospects for Change and Implications for the Regions and the
World, NSN 7540–01-280-5500.
17
Ibid.
20 | P a g e
 INDIA AND UNSC REFORMS- A CASE STUDY

Since a long time, it has come to be widely accepted that India has a massive potential as one of
the key players on global stage. There are several reasons attributed to it. One of them is growth
of its economic at a rapid pace. Even when several major economies became victims of ever
changing and volatile international economic markets, India was able to retain its growth rate
consistently. Other reasons for growing influence of India in international politics is its geography,
its strategic location, its demography. Besides this, India has been seen as one of the key players
to contain the rise of China as a superpower. In light of these reasons, it is also necessary that
India’s participation and its role in policy making and decision making should also increase
significantly in supranational institutions especially the United Nations.

If reforms have to be truly achieved in the Security Council, there is a need to accommodate and
involve the nations which have contributed significantly to global order politically as well
economically besides the traditional players. Keeping in mind all these factors, there is a need to
give a greater need to involve India to a greater extent in Security Council.

• INDIA’S PARTICIPATION IN SECURITY COUNCIL OVER THE YEARS

“The Indian approach to the UN, in India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s words, is
characterised by “whole-hearted cooperation” through full participation “in its councils to which
her geographical position, and contribution towards peaceful progress entitle her.”18

UN Security Council has played a significant role in preserving international security and
maintaining peace. As a result, India has shown a keen interest in its functioning since it was
established in 1945.

India has been elected for seven terms for a two-year non-permanent member seat, the last being
2011-12, only behind Japan, Brazil and Argentina. Except for the first time, when India held the
seat earmarked for the Commonwealth group, it has held the seat on every other occasion on
behalf of the Asian group. India has been a member of the Council during 1950-51, 1967-68,
1972-73, 1977-78, 984-85, 1991- 92, and lastly, 2011-12 which was seen as a “rehearsal for
permanent membership” During the last term, India won the non-permanent seat with the highest
number of votes in the General Assembly showing its impressive electoral popularity. It needs to

18
Manish S. Dabhade, “India’s Pursuit of United Nations Security Council Reforms”, 2017 Observer Research
Foundation, ISBN: 978-93-87407-34-3.
21 | P a g e
be recalled that in 1996, India had lost the elections to Japan by a wide margin for a non-permanent
seat.19

• INDIA’S PERSPECTIVE ON COUNCIL REFORMS

Indian attempts at reforming the Council date as far back as 1979, when India’s ambassador to
the UN, Brajesh Mishra, along with other NAM countries submitted a draft resolution to the
General Assembly calling for an increase in the non-permanent membership from 10 to 14,
arguing an increase in the UN membership as the principal reason. The 1990s also saw India’s
attempts at pressing for UN reforms. India joined a number of countries in adopting General
Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/62, inscribing this item on our agenda for the first time in
September 1992.20

Five set of issues has been highlighted with regard to reforms in Security Council and Indian
perspective with regard to these issues are as follows:

o Categories of Membership:

India has advocated an increase in membership for both permanent as well as non-permanent
members. It has contended that there is an imbalance with regard to powers provided and
exercised by these categories of members. Also, it has supported Africa’s demand for increased
membership in both categories as 54 members from the continent are members of UN.

o Question of Veto:

“On the most important question of veto, India’s position is fully aligned with the G4, L.69 and
Africa who have called for the abolition of veto and till it exists, it needs to be provided for all
members of the permanent category of the Security Council, which should have all prerogatives
and privileges of permanent membership in the permanent category, including the right of veto.
(March 2016) The Indian position is not one of quantity, viz. extending it immediately to new
permanent members, but talks about quality, viz., of introducing restrictions. India, showing a
marked flexibility, has argued that it supports new members with the same responsibilities and
obligations as current permanent members as a matter of principle. It is open to not exercising the
veto by new permanent members until a decision is taken during a review process.”21

• INDIA’S AMBITION WITH REGARD TO ITS POSITION IN SECURITY COUNCIL

19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22 | P a g e
“India’s concerted bid to be admitted as a veto-wielding ‘P’ member of the Security Council is
the single most watched issue with in the country when it comes to the United Nations organization
as a whole. As the Sanctum Sanctorum and prime custodian of International Law with more
powers than any other entity in the International System, The Security Council is a ‘Bull’s eye’
for India to target. The demand for India’s inclusion in a reformed security council keeps getting
shriller as the country persists with large personnel contribution to UN peacekeeping missions
and leap frogs out of mediocre economic performance in to an Asian Giant with a Pluralistic
Democratic Political System to boot.”22

“By any objective criteria, such as population, territorial size, GDP, economic potential,
civilizational legacy, cultural diversity, political system and past and ongoing contributions to the
activities of the UN — especially to UN peacekeeping operations — India is eminently qualified
for permanent membership. India has affirmed its willingness and capacity to shoulder the
responsibilities of permanent membership. India's efforts at the New York based negotiations are
complemented by the high - level endorsements of its candidature for a permanent seat by most
countries including four of the P-5.”23

India’s interest in Security Council has its origin in the initial years of UN when it was offered a
permanent seat in the Security Council. However, at that time the nation was dealing with partition
and as a result leaders of the nation preferred to keep their focus on ensuing national stability.
Subsequently in 1950s again it was again offered the permanent membership, but however, due
to the power struggle between US and USSR in the Cold War days it once again refused the
permanent member status. Also, it did now want a place at cost of China. Erstwhile Prime Minister
Nehru made Indian position clear in the following words:

“It would do us little good and it would bring a great deal of trouble in its train….India, because of many
factors is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council. But we are not going in at the cost
of China.”24

Over the course of years, while being a non-permanent member of the Council, it has tried to lend
its support to all those initiatives and decisions which has ensured ushering in international peace
and stability. It has ensured itself as a champion of peace by resolution of conflicts through non-
military methods by lending humanitarian assistance from time to time as well as contributing

22
Manish Kumar Yadav, “India’s Quest for United Nations Security Council Permanent Seat with Special Reference
to its Peace Keeping Credentials”, Global Journal of Political Science., Volume 2, Number 1 (2014), pp. 1-11,
Research India Publications.
23
Permanent Mission of India to the UN, New York, Introduction, retrieved 1 May 2017,
https://www.pminewyork.org/pages.php?id=1981.
24
Supra Note 1.
23 | P a g e
significantly to peace keeping missions. It has also played an active role in repatriation of prisoner
of wars and refugees.

“A shining example of India’s commitment to maintain peace in international arena is its

peacekeeping efforts. India also makes a strong case by highlighting its regular, significant
contributions to the UN. In the arena of peacekeeping, India has remained the largest cumulative
contributor of UN peacekeeping troops with around 180,000 troops since the 1950s. Currently,
around 7,700 Indian peacekeepers have been deployed in 13 missions (out of the total of 16) in
11 countries.”25

However, since 1991 there has been a slight shift in India’s position in its approach towards its
position in Security Council. It has started voicing its demand for reforms in the council. It has
demanded that it be provided with permanent membership in the council. This coincided with the
end in Cold War and also along with major economic reforms undertaken in Indian economy.

The Indian demand for permanent membership is based on the following reasons:

1. In initial years, when the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan was at its peak, India took the matter
to United Nations. The dispute got entangled with ongoing Cold War struggle. As a result,
instead of the dispute being resolved on merits and keeping the circumstances and best
interests of people in mind, the council decided to favor Pakistan as it was favorable to the
geopolitical situation of that time. The dispute is still going on till this this time and to ensure
there is no repeat of history, India wants a permanent seat so that its demand could be taken
into consideration. Also, Chinese presence, a Pakistani ally, makes it pertinent for us to have
a permanent seat in the Council.
2. Indian demography is primary reason why India should be a permanent member of the
Council. India, with its population at 1.25 billion now, is the second most populous country
in the world comprising almost one-fifth of humanity. This basic fact itself warrants Indian
inclusion and representation in the Security Council.
3. “India’s rising economic stature globally has added to Indian claims as well. India is now the
fastest-growing major economy in the world, and Asia’s third largest. India’s real GDP
growth, as its 2017 Economic Survey predicts, will remain between 6.75 percent and 7.5
despite international upheavals like growing oil prices, Brexit, growing protectionism and
trade-related tensions between major economies. India’s leading position in software and its
IT-enabled services making it a global technology giant add to its increasing economic and

25
Ibid.
24 | P a g e
 trade footprint across the world. India is now counted amongst the most influential players in
economic organisations like the WTO, BRICS and the G20.”26
4. The seat on the high table, at the UN’s premier, powerful body would provide it the much
needed leverage to expand its global geo-political and geo-economic clout. It would serve as
an equalizer to China, its rival and an emerging hegemon in Asia, and an ever increasing
strategic and security concern in its immediate neighbourhood and beyond. India has always
seen itself as a democratic alternative to the authoritarian China. India’s millennia old
civilizational existence also demands it to be at the top of the international hierarchy of
states.27

• INDIA’S PERSPECTIVE ON COUNCIL REFORMS

Indian attempts at reforming the Council date back to 1979, when India’s ambassador to the UN,
Brajesh Mishra, along with other NAM countries submitted a draft resolution to the General
Assembly calling for an increase in the non-permanent membership from 10 to 14 on the basis of
growing UN membership. The 1990s also saw India’s attempts at pressing for UN reforms. India
joined a number of countries in adopting General Assembly Resolution A/RES/47/62 which
formally made it an issue in General Assembly. Till now five set of issues have been identified
with regard to UN Security Council reforms. Indian position with regard to these issues is as
follows:

o Categories of Membership

India has supported an expansion in both permanent as well as non-permanent membership. It is

of the view that there has been an imbalance in both the categories and permanent members have
tended to dominate the decision making process on the whole. It is of the view that only an
increase in non-permanent membership will not serve any purpose. There is a need to expand
permanent membership and that too through election process. India has also supported African
position on its representation as both permanent as well as non-permanent members. It has also
extended support to smaller countries to become part of the Council.

o Question of Veto

26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
25 | P a g e
On this issue India has adopted the same position as has been adopted by G4, L69 and Africa. It
has called for the abolition of veto. However, till this power exists it is of the view that certain
restrictions should be introduced on its exercise by the permanent five members.

o Regional Representation

On the question of regional representation, India has forcefully argued that the Council lacks a
representative character. Since, its establishment in 1945 the membership has increased from 51
to 174 but still the Council has lacked a proper representation from Africa, Latin America, Arab
States, Caribbean region and Eastern Europe. It has regarded the increasing clamour for
representation from these regions as a “cry of frustration”. It has contended that since its
establishment, the geopolitical situation has undergone an extensive change and accordingly the
Council should be made more inclusive in nature.

o Size of Council and its Working Methods

“On the question of the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, India has stated that
‘we the peoples’ in whose name the Charter was agreed to have more than trebled since 1945,
from about 2.35 billion worldwide to more than 7.3 billion estimated today. Also, at the signing
of the UN Charter in 1945, the Security Council had 11 members, including five permanent
members and six non-permanent members and a total of 51 member states. Thus, there was one
Council member for every five Member-States and one permanent member for every 10 of the
General Assembly. The UN membership now has also trebled. (Feb 2016) India, realising the
need to be realistic, has not called for a three-fold expansion in the membership of the Council.”28

o Relationship Between Security Council and General Assembly

On this issue, India is of the view that the relationship and working between these two organs
should not be adversarial in nature, but, should be complementary. These two should work in such
a manner that would promote international peace and security. Also, it has argued for increasing
transparency and accountability in the dealings between the two organs.

o INDIA’S STRATEGY AND APPROACH TOWARDS REFORMS

India in order to secure permanent membership has adopted a multi-faceted strategy. Two of the
most important components of this strategy are: increasing support from General Assembly and
minimising resistance from the Council. India is of the view that its leadership of various global
forums such as G77, NAM, IBSA etc would led to garnering of support from majority of

28
Ibid.
26 | P a g e
members. Also, it is making extensive efforts in securing the support of permanent five members.
The signing of Civil Nuclear Deal with US, reiterating the historic significance of Indo-Russian
relationship and seeking a rapprochement with China is a part of these efforts.

Besides this, it also has lent support to Africa in its efforts to securing increased membership in
the Council as permanent and non-permanent members. It also formed G4 along with Japan,
Brazil and Germany. Despite initial enthusiasm, it was not able to gather support for its proposals.
However, it was once again revived by PM Narendra Modi in 2015. In 2015 G4 Summit, he
reiterated the group’s commitment to peace and security and also to reforms in Security Council.

“However, Mukherjee and Malone (2013) highlight at least three challenges to India’s aspirations
at the UNSC: lack of enough Indian government resources for multilateral diplomacy, insufficient
engagement with the normative aspects of many UN Security Council issues, and an over-reliance
on entitlement as the bedrock of India’s claims to permanent membership, at the cost of more
hard-nosed real politik bargaining in the UN. Further, with India as part of G4, it seems to have
limited its options to negotiate a seat for itself as great power and regional politics would
circumscribe the G4 attempts to win permanent seats for all as a group (Baru 2015).”29

• CONCLUSION

The Indian interests in joining the reformed UN Security Council stem from its long, civilisational
history, strategic geographic location and significant demographic features, its rapidly increasing
traditional great power ambitions. Successive Indian leaderships have therefore, emphasised time
and again, the pressing need to democratise the international relations embodied in the UN and its
all-powerful Security Council. Reiterating this, the Indian PM Modi said in September 2014:

“We must reform the United Nations, including the Security Council, and make it more
democratic and participative. Institutions that reflect the imperatives of 20th century won’t be
effective in the 21st. It would face the risk of irrelevance; and we will face the risk of continuing
turbulence with no one capable of addressing it… Let us fulfill our promise to reform the United
Nations Security Council by 2015.”30

29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
27 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Reforming the Security Council, especially its expansion and ensuring it is truly representative in
character has become one of the most controversial issues faced by the United Nations in the
recent times. Despite several attempts being made to reform it, the pace at which it is occurring is
slow. General Assembly recognised it as one of the issues back in 1992, but even after 27 years,
no substantial progress has been made. Different nations have different interests which clash with
each other and as a result of these conflicting interest slow progress is made in the direction of
achieving reforms.

Swart states, “The lack of substantial outcome during the last 20 years of Security Council reform
deliberations… seems not only a consequence of the intense power struggle being waged between
groupings of Members States, but also rests on substantive and strategic differences among those
professing to share specific goals.”31

Besides this, there has been resistance from the permanent members to reform the Council in any
way. They are not willing to forgo their powers and privileges especially veto power. It has been
contended by the critics the vesting of such extensive powers with them is undemocratic.
However, any attempt to restrict such powers is next to impossible. The members derive their
powers from the Charter which is difficult to amend.

Besides this, various reform proposals such as those given by HLP and UFC will also not serve
any purpose. Their proposal for expansion in permanent membership would only serve the
countries which are elected and not the geographic regions they represent. Once such member has
been given permanent membership, it is not necessary that they would serve and represent the
interest of geographical area they are from. Also, in case of regional disputes, most members
would only work towards meeting the interest of their region instead of maintaining peace and
security.

Also, geopolitics is dynamic in nature. The nations which are in a position of influence may not
so be anymore in future. For instance, when the UN was established, UK and France were world
powers. However, their power and authority has eroded with passage of time. Now, countries like
Germany and India hold a position of influence.

31
Swart, Lydia. “Reform of the Security Council: 2007–2013.” In Governing & Managing Change at the United
Nations: Reform of the Security Council from 1945 to September 2013, edited by Swart, Lydia and Estelle Perry.
Vol. 1, 1–119. New York: Center for U.N. Reform Education, September 2013.
28 | P a g e
“Most of the UNSC’s failures are attributed to lack of consensus among P5 members and not due
to the broad-based representation. Furthermore, the large size of the UNSC would be ineffective
to deal with its responsibility of preventing threats to peace. Expansion of the permanent
membership of the UNSC would make the consensus among permanent members to reach an
agreement on important disputes difficult. Often, the P5 members have failed to agree on
important resolutions pertaining to peace and security, so in a similar situation it would be even
more difficult for an expanded UNSC to achieve consensus.”32

Keeping in mind the current circumstances, the demand of expansion of permanent membership
would not serve any purpose. Ensuring regional representation is the main idea behind expanding
permanent membership. However, this expansion would not result in balanced regional
representation. If these new members are given veto powers, then its exercise would be still a
matter of concern. Instead, countries should make efforts to resolve various regional conflicts so
that the scope of exercise of powers by permanent members is minimized.

there is a need to expand the non-permanent membership. Also, their term of tenures should be
increased from current two year terms to five year terms so that they could make substantial
contributions.

32
Supra Note 15.
29 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Malcolm Shaw, International Law, Seventh Edition, 2017, Cambridge University Press
2. www.un.org

3. Swart, Lydia. “Reform of the Security Council: 2007–2013.” In Governing & Managing
Change at the United Nations: Reform of the Security Council from 1945 to September 2013,
edited by Swart, Lydia and Estelle Perry. Vol. 1, 1–119. New York: Center for U.N. Reform
Education, September 2013.
4. Manish Kumar Yadav, “India’s Quest for United Nations Security Council Permanent Seat
with Special Reference to its Peace Keeping Credentials”, Global Journal of Political Science.,
Volume 2, Number 1 (2014), pp. 1-11, Research India Publications.
5. https://www.pminewyork.gov.in/unsc

6. Vesselin Popovski, “Reforming and innovating the United Nations Security Council”,
Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance,
http://www.globalsecurityjusticegovernance.org last visited on 21st October 2019 at 5:00 PM.
7. Dr. Saleh Al Shraideh, “The Security Council’s Veto in the Balance”, Journal of Law, Policy
and Globalization, ISSN 2224-3240, Vol.58, 2017.
8. Aamir Hussain Khan, UNSC’S Expansion: Prospects for Change and Implications for the
Regions and the World, NSN 7540–01-280-5500.
9. Ingo Winkelmann, “Bringing the Security Council into a New Era- Recent Developments in
the Discussion on the Reform of Security Council”, Max Planck Yearbook of United
Nations Law, Volume I.

30 | P a g e