Why has there been no reform of the UN?

Résumé du document

"Reform is the purposeful act of modifying the structure, composition, decision-making procedures, working methods, funding or staffing of an institution in order to enhance its efficiency and/or effectiveness in advancing its core goals and principles." Considering this definition, and trying to apply it to the United Nations System, we are committed to question the functioning of the organisation, to envisage its possible improvement. Why would reforms of the UN system be needed? When looking at the range of field subject to reforms, it's easy to notice that, indeed, UN needs to be reformed. Decision-making procedures are contested through the claim for new permanent seats at the Security Council, the legitimacy of the veto right, the proposals for a weighted system of voting at the General Assembly; funding is clearly a critical issue regarding the dramatic financial crisis the UN goes through, and its so small budget (around $10billions a year, which is absolutely obsolete compared as many governments' budgets).

Extraits

[...] US hegemon is not ready to pay more for a system which would take its power away. Powers like France and UK are far less than ready to give up their position to the benefit of a common European seat. Small, poor countries want a strong UN System which promotes human rights, human needs, and thus enhances their development, whereas greater powers tend to keep it weak. The need for improvement of the UN is commonly agreed; however the system is infested by the plague of hypocrisy. [...]

[...] The same as above plus France. P5 refers to the five permanent members of the SC. Security Council reforms have been debated at the GA, the 30th of October http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/ga9942.doc.htm Two packages of reforms are competing by now; Model creation of 6 new permanent seats( no veto) and 3 new two-years term elected seats; Model 8 new every-four-years-renewable seats, and 1 two-year non-renewable seat. Discussions about these two models are to be led at the annual meeting of the GA, in September 2005. [...]

[...] It is up to its members to provide these means of action. And many states do not wish such an increase in UN influence to the expense, either of their purse, or of their own power (or both). Much of the problems the UN face come from this different willingness of the members to strengthen it or not. Political interests are more at stake than bureaucracy and staffing in the process for reforms. Emerging (potential) powers want a strong UN to give them more influence and help their development. [...]

[...] Why has there been no reform of the UN? “Reform is the purposeful act of modifying the structure, composition, decision-making procedures, working methods, funding or staffing of an institution in order to enhance its efficiency and/or effectiveness in advancing its core goals and principles.” Considering this definition, and trying to apply it to the United Nations System, we are committed to question the functioning of the organisation, to envisage its possible improvement. Why would reforms of the UN system be needed? [...]

[...] While it actually partly reflects the growth in UN membership, it still needs to be reconsidered. First, it came out that no clear requirements were set for staff recruitment, even for senior staff! It seems that the system is more based on equity rather than on efficiency: geographical representation rather than qualified candidates. And still, when skilled workers are recruited they fall under the burden of bureaucracy evoked above. UN counts around 600 economists working on its programmes, but they waste much of their time in administrative tasks: IMF[2] economists are almost 950, and only dedicated to studies and researches. [...]