Simran Gill
Evaluate whether the UN Security Council is fit for purpose?
The United Nations Security Council, or UNSC for short is the UN’s executive committee, responsible for
maintaining international peace and security. It is the most powerful branch of the UN with the powers
to issue binding resolutions in international law, by which all UN member states must abide.
Furthermore, they have the ability to issue economic sanctions and authorise military action, ranging
from humanitarian intervention to no-fly zones. Essentially, the UNSC is the supreme decision-making
body for dealing with international crises and collective security dilemmas. It comprises of 5 permanent
members – China, Russia, France, UK, and USA and ten elected, non-permanent members. The current
non-permanent members are Belgium, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia, Niger, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Tunisia, and Vietnam. The main difference between the
permanent and non-permanent members is that the permanent members have veto power. This means
that they are given the right to veto any resolution with which they disagree. The most recent agenda
that was vetoed was on 20th December 2019. Russia and China both vetoed the agenda of Humanitarian
Access in Syria. Some may argue that the UNSC has achieved many significant successes during its
operations; demanding a ceasefire in Libya for the protection of civilians and establishing a no-fly zone
there. However, I believe that the UNSC is not fit for purpose as it does not represent the current world
order or current collective security dilemmas and needs immediate reform. Moreover, the power of
veto that permanent members yield has certainly been a cause for paralysis and have undermined the
UNSC’s main purpose of maintaining international peace and security as countries use the veto to satisfy
their own realist national interests.
The nature of security threats itself has constantly been changing since the end of the Cold War,
however the UNSC has been unable to respond to them. Even the former UN Security General, Kofi
Annan argued that modern-day threats include not only war and conflict but also ‘poverty, deadly
infectious diseases and environmental degradations.’ There has been a rise in many collective security
issues such as terrorism, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and environmental degradation which shows how security
threats have evolved in the 21st Century. However, this evolving landscape has not been paralleled by a
significant transformation of the Security Council whose main focus has primarily been solving war
related issues. One of the biggest issues that the world has to confront is climate change. Research has
shown that if the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere remains unchanged, its impact on earth
will be catastrophic, affecting people’s health and access to food and water. The recognition that climate
change may amount to threats to international peace and security was only brought to the Security
Council in 2011. However, during that meeting countries such as Russia and India expressed reservations
about getting the UNSC involved, despite acknowledging that in the long run, it could exacerbate
existing security threats. The failure of UNSC to deal with environmental issues as a result of internal
power dynamics certainly brings into question the legitimacy of the body.
The UNSC membership and powers certainly do not mirror the 21 st Century world order. Many have
argued that the 5 permanent members ‘reflect the power relations of 1945, not 2000s’. This reigns true
as they were the victors of World War 2 and were therefore the most powerful states when the UN was
founded. France and the UK are no longer significant powers and should be replaced or supplemented
by other powers. The UNSC has failed to take the emerging powers such as Brazil, Germany, India, and
Japan into account. The current world order is arguably more multipolar than it ever was before, where
not only states but regional organisations such as the EU playing a fundamental role in international
relations. Therefore, its preposterous to create resolutions without these actors involved. Moving on,
Evaluate whether the UN Security Council is fit for purpose?
The United Nations Security Council, or UNSC for short is the UN’s executive committee, responsible for
maintaining international peace and security. It is the most powerful branch of the UN with the powers
to issue binding resolutions in international law, by which all UN member states must abide.
Furthermore, they have the ability to issue economic sanctions and authorise military action, ranging
from humanitarian intervention to no-fly zones. Essentially, the UNSC is the supreme decision-making
body for dealing with international crises and collective security dilemmas. It comprises of 5 permanent
members – China, Russia, France, UK, and USA and ten elected, non-permanent members. The current
non-permanent members are Belgium, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia, Niger, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Tunisia, and Vietnam. The main difference between the
permanent and non-permanent members is that the permanent members have veto power. This means
that they are given the right to veto any resolution with which they disagree. The most recent agenda
that was vetoed was on 20th December 2019. Russia and China both vetoed the agenda of Humanitarian
Access in Syria. Some may argue that the UNSC has achieved many significant successes during its
operations; demanding a ceasefire in Libya for the protection of civilians and establishing a no-fly zone
there. However, I believe that the UNSC is not fit for purpose as it does not represent the current world
order or current collective security dilemmas and needs immediate reform. Moreover, the power of
veto that permanent members yield has certainly been a cause for paralysis and have undermined the
UNSC’s main purpose of maintaining international peace and security as countries use the veto to satisfy
their own realist national interests.
The nature of security threats itself has constantly been changing since the end of the Cold War,
however the UNSC has been unable to respond to them. Even the former UN Security General, Kofi
Annan argued that modern-day threats include not only war and conflict but also ‘poverty, deadly
infectious diseases and environmental degradations.’ There has been a rise in many collective security
issues such as terrorism, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and environmental degradation which shows how security
threats have evolved in the 21st Century. However, this evolving landscape has not been paralleled by a
significant transformation of the Security Council whose main focus has primarily been solving war
related issues. One of the biggest issues that the world has to confront is climate change. Research has
shown that if the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere remains unchanged, its impact on earth
will be catastrophic, affecting people’s health and access to food and water. The recognition that climate
change may amount to threats to international peace and security was only brought to the Security
Council in 2011. However, during that meeting countries such as Russia and India expressed reservations
about getting the UNSC involved, despite acknowledging that in the long run, it could exacerbate
existing security threats. The failure of UNSC to deal with environmental issues as a result of internal
power dynamics certainly brings into question the legitimacy of the body.
The UNSC membership and powers certainly do not mirror the 21 st Century world order. Many have
argued that the 5 permanent members ‘reflect the power relations of 1945, not 2000s’. This reigns true
as they were the victors of World War 2 and were therefore the most powerful states when the UN was
founded. France and the UK are no longer significant powers and should be replaced or supplemented
by other powers. The UNSC has failed to take the emerging powers such as Brazil, Germany, India, and
Japan into account. The current world order is arguably more multipolar than it ever was before, where
not only states but regional organisations such as the EU playing a fundamental role in international
relations. Therefore, its preposterous to create resolutions without these actors involved. Moving on,
