The need for UN reform
For more than half a century, the United Nations (UN), established immediately after the Second World War, has been the most significant international body that has managed to unite 193 states of different cultures and religions to maintain peace and cooperation among nations. However, despite its extensive history and the achievement of positive results by the specialised committees of the organisation, the majority of UN member states have expressed the need to reform the institution in accordance with modern realities. Thus, recent military conflicts and political crises that have undermined international stability in various regions have revealed several critical gaps in the organisation's work, due to the ineffectiveness and archaic nature of the norms enshrined in the UN Charter, requiring a more flexible, timely and, most importantly, relevant approach to addressing them.
Criticism of UN structural constraints
With each passing year, a growing number of UN members are voicing the need to reform the system of permanent and non-permanent membership of the Security Council, which is dominated by developed countries, while developing countries have little opportunity to contribute substantially to the decision-making process.
Currently, no African state has permanent representation on the UNSC despite the continent being the second most populous and having serious security challenges.
This unevenness in representation leads to the fact that the interests of a large number of participants, especially small nations, are not taken into account when making resolutions and puts them in an impasse. Therefore, this issue has recently been actively discussed at international forums and meetings of heads of state, where leaders propose their options for changing the structure of the UNSC.
For example, many permanent members of the Security Council recognise the need to reform the membership system, but there is no consensus on how to deal with this situation. Some participants - France and the UK - are in favour of expanding the number of permanent members to include new powers such as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan and increasing the total number of member states to 20-25, others - China and Russia - emphasise the importance of the presence of all BRICS countries as permanent members of the UNSC, while the US, in turn, unlike Moscow, London, Paris and Beijing, tries to avoid direct statements of support for the candidacy of a certain state, but speaks positively about the accession of 6 new states to the UNSC. There are also differing views on whether regional organisations such as the African or European Unions should be able to hold permanent seats on the Security Council.
However, not all states demand the transformation of the Council, for example, the coalition "Accountability, Coherence and Transparency" led by Switzerland adheres to a conservative approach, i.e. in favour of maintaining the existing number of permanent members of the UNSC, as well as the partial abolition of the veto right.
Nevertheless, despite the disparate views of the permanent members of the Security Council on changing its structure, most States believe that a more representative and inclusive body reflecting the current geopolitical landscape is necessary.
Ineffectiveness of the UN in addressing contemporary challenges
In the current circumstances, in addition to structural constraints, the objectivity and timeliness of UN decision-making is affected, for example, by the problem of the lack of funding for the United Nations. This has become particularly acute with the growing number of international challenges such as terrorism, climate change and cyber threats. Unlike other international organisations, such as the European Union or NATO, the UN budget is funded by voluntary contributions from its member states. However, not all countries contribute their full share, which leads to delays in the implementation of social or peacekeeping programmes and projects, as well as impedes the achievement of the UN's goals and the fulfilment of all its objectives. For example, in 2021, the World Food Programme (WFP) faced a serious funding gap to assist refugees and Ethiopians suffering from rising food prices, the effects of drought, floods and fighting in the northern part of the country. Allocations received by WFP for humanitarian operations in Ethiopia cannot fully meet the growing needs of the population, which means only one thing - millions of people will soon be left destitute and on the brink of a food crisis unless additional funds are made available to address the situation.
Another factor hindering the resolution of acute inter-ethnic disputes or conflicts is irreconcilable differences between UN member states based on ideological differences or geopolitical contradictions. For example, in March 2022, during Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's speech to the Human Rights Council, more than 100 diplomats from different countries left the room in protest against Russia's special military operation in Ukraine. And in September of the same year, a Russian delegation accompanying the Russian Foreign Minister to the UN General Assembly faced the problem of obtaining visas to the United States, where the UN headquarters is located.
Such situations also have an impact on delaying the adoption of resolutions: recently, some Council members have started to use the veto to protect their national interests, ignoring common international norms and values. From 1945 to 2023, the permanent members of the UN Security Council used this privileged right 313 times on issues related to the DPRK, Namibia, the Suez Canal, the Middle East: Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and the occupied Arab territories.
However, the abuse of the veto power by some countries, as well as the limited number of individuals who have this power, have caused growing discontent among the non-permanent members of the UNSC, as this situation limits the ability of the Security Council to take fair and effective action on armed conflicts, humanitarian crises or other world problems.
For example, in October 2023, several versions of resolutions on the situation in Gaza were presented to the Council, but none of them were adopted due to a veto by the United States at the second meeting and by Russia and China at the fourth. Thus, the action plan proposed by the Brazilian presidency was rejected by Washington because the text of the document provided for an immediate ceasefire and called for restraint on the parties to the conflict but did not include Israel's right to self-defence. It is important to note that from the beginning of the standoff, the United States has sided with Tel Aviv, strongly condemning Hamas actions in the region, expressing support for Israel at the diplomatic level, and providing American arms and financial aid to the Israelis.
It makes no sense to restrain Israel from military action. What is the point? The point is that we need to further develop our military industrial complex, which should account for more than 2 % of our gross domestic product. There are conflicts which need to be resolved with arms and we are prepared to provide these arms, these weapons.
Instead of promptly preventing the conflict peacefully, organising humanitarian corridors and securing the release of prisoners from both sides, the process of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has dragged on and no consensus has been reached, which demonstrates the ineffectiveness of one of the main functions of the UN - mediation.
The only solution in such situations is the imposition of unilateral economic and political sanctions by states bypassing the Security Council, despite the contradiction with the UN Charter. In the current circumstances, this method is more effective than the Security Council sanctions, as it reflects the true will of one state or a group of countries united in small strategic blocs.
This is why many actors are pushing for a change in the way the veto is exercised, thus achieving a more balanced approach. Reforms could include limiting or cancelling the use of the privileged right in crisis situations, such as when dealing with human rights violations. In addition, increased transparency and the obligation for veto-wielding countries to provide justification could contribute to a fair and open decision-making process.
It is a matter of analysis, why do we have to talk about peace and stability in different forums? Why is the UN, which was started with the idea of establishing peace, not successful in preventing conflicts today?
The issue of reforming the structure and Charter of the United Nations has thus been one of the primary and fundamental topics of discussion at the General Assembly for more than 40 years. The world is undergoing various political, economic, social and environmental transformations every year over time, and the Organisation must be able to keep pace with these changes, otherwise the UN risks repeating the fate of the League of Nations - ending its activities due to its inability to prevent world conflicts and overcome humanitarian crisis.
