Reform of the United Nations Security Council

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (January 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations Security Council has undergone one reform, increasing its membership from 4 to 10 non-permanent members. Nonetheless, this first and only reform has not left the global community satisfied, which has since then relentlessly called for a more all-encompassing reform. Reform of the Security Council encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Despite a common agreement amongst member states, regional groups and academics on the need for reform, its feasibility is compromised by the difficulty to find an approach that would please all parties. Any reform of the Security Council would require the agreement of at least two-thirds of United Nations member states in a vote in the General Assembly and must be ratified by two-thirds of Member States. All of the permanent members (P5) of the UNSC, which hold veto rights, must also agree.^[1]

Emerging victorious of the Second World War, the five permanent member states, France, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China, were considered the best placed to ensure world peace and stability when the UN was establish in 1945^[2]. Considering the increase of UN member state from 51 states at its creation, to 193 states today^[3], as well as the geopolitical, systematic and normative changes after decolonization and the end of the Cold War, critics judge the Security Council unrepresentative of the current world order^[4]. Further evidences questioning the Security Council's adequacy in effectively maintaining international peace and security can be illustrated by the P5' use of veto power on resolutions which go against their national interests, but that could benefit other member states. In history, examples are found in the Security Council's inaction in the establishment of effective preventative measures and defensive peacekeeping actions during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda^[5]. In more recent time, the Security Council has failed to mediate the Russo-Ukrainian war, as draft resolutions on the conflict have been consistently vetoed by Russia.^[6]

As such, regional groups and Member States interest grouping have developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.^[7]