Reforming the United Nations Security Council: cross-country analysis of a G-4 potential permanent membership

Abstract

The paper uses methods of historical and comparative analysis and studies the functioning of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) since its establishment. It finds out, that the debate on the institutional performance is characterized by a consensus, i.e. the lack of reforms has led to the lack of its effectiveness. Nowadays, such a finding is even more evident, the aggressive war that one of the permanent members, Russia started against Ukraine, added new arguments of the same logic. The paper draws on secondary data to explore the weaknesses of the UNSC with a particular emphasis on the negative impact of the veto right. It highlights the limits of the UNSC and the attempts of state coalitions to overcome them. It elaborates on criteria for legitimate right to accede to UNSC permanent membership and justifies the relevance of four of them on the grounds of their current appropriateness. Further on, the paper introduces outcomes of a cross-country analysis of a G-4 (Germany, Japan, Brazil and India), the most influential state coalition for UNSC reform. The results of the comparison illustrate legitimate potential of states to become permanent members of the UNSC. The discussion includes policy recommendations for UNSC reforms: adopting criteria for legitimacy of permanent UNSC membership; change in the structure of the permanent UNSC membership; abolition of the veto right and introducing the method of qualified majority voting.