Short essay: Security Council Reform In The United Nations and Changing World Politics (Westview Press, 2007), the author argues that "a significant shake-up in the way the UN does business is essential" if the UN is to keep pace with changing world

Résumé du document

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, called in September 2003 for the reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), in order to make it more effective and more representative, given the changed geopolitical realities. Diverse problems affect both the efficiency and the representative character of the UNSC like the the veto power and the number and nature of the permanent and non-permanent members. Criticisms are numerous, blaming a 'nuclear powers club' and a no longer legitimate veto power for some of the permanent members that are not top countries anymore, such as Britain and France. Is democratic representation appealed by the members of the UN, or at least by the most powerful ones who would have to renounce to their dominant position in the Security Council? Will the UN have to choose between democracy and efficiency?

Extraits

[...] Formal and public meetings are more and more frequent. These are all informal efforts made, given the structural reform is not coming. Conclusion The partly unfunded legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council poses problems regarding its efficiency that also has to be improved. A balance between the democracy character of the UN and the efficiency that has to be aimed at has to be found, though the cooperation of states is partly determined by their own interests. Will the Security Council ever be democratic? [...]

[...] Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. This is an even more difficult problem to deal with, since it is logistically apparently impossible to solve. International Organizations, The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst, Rienner, Colorado “Overcoming the Security Council Reform Impasse, The Implausible versus the Plausible”, Thomas G. Weiss, Dialogue on Globalization OCCASIONAL PAPERS, 14 / January 2005, New York. [...]

[...] Karns and Mingst underline[1] that the reform of the UNSC structure is most urgent issue of all the issues on the UN reform agenda'. This is easy to explain: the UNSC has a great importance because of its supposed legitimacy and its symbolist character of legitimate and powerful body of the UN. The geopolitical world'[2] is to be acknowledged by the ‘changed world', especially into this body of the UN. The two problems faced are the limitations of the veto power (or its distribution within the permanent and prospective permanent members) and the conditions to membership. [...]

[...] Current permanent members such as Britain or France are against, and a blockage is more likely than positive results, agreement on what process or formula should be used to determine who would get new permanent seats' [10]. Also, countries that know a rival could be candidate and can tend to oppose adding permanent seats. Nevertheless, Karns and Mingst add that progress was made, if not formally, by making non member nations contribute to the decision-making if they are contributors in troops and material in the case of interventions decisions. [...]

[...] Legitimacy is a good argument, but not sufficient to convince the great permanent members, determined after World War II for their military and political power, to renounce to their domination on the UNSC, even though other countries are now more powerful (Japan and Germany, for example) than they may be or also now have the nuclear power. Why is reform needed? The reform has to keep in pace with the balance defined by Wallensteen in 1994, quoted by Karns and Mingst[6]: the UNSC has to ‘increase the number of members for geographic representation and enhanced legitimacy, while maintaining a small enough size to ensure efficiency'. [...]