Harmonizing Regional Interests for a More Representative UN Security Council

November 18, 2022 by Digital Editor

Frederic Koberl - Unsplash

By Kanishka Bhukya

There is no clearer example of the United National’s (UN) inability to live up to its founding ideals than the recent Russia-Ukraine conflict, in which the UN has utterly failed to end the unspeakable suffering and devastation in Ukraine. Without a doubt, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is by far the most powerful forum of the United Nations. The UN Charter has made the UNSC’s decisions binding on all states and has entrusted it with the crucial role of maintaining world peace and security. Its restricted geographical balance, however, along with the exclusiveness of its permanent members and veto power render the UNSC less representative than what many other member-states prefer. These states—particularly emerging economies—are advocating for a major overhaul of the body. 

While most nations believe that the UNSC needs profound change, there is much debate about the mechanism. Therefore, against the backdrop of competing claims for permanent membership in the UNSC, this article seeks to crystalize the finest aspects of the various academic, organizational, and state recommendations for permanent membership and modified veto power.  To that end, this article proposes a possible solution to achieve a new consensus on Security Council restructuring and also to reflect contemporary power realities of the twenty-first century. 

The need for reform: a grossly unrepresentative Council

A majority of UN member-states have begun to call for a reform or a substantial overhaul in the way the UNSC functions in order to reflect the realities of the twenty-first century, such as emerging India, the waning British empire, increasing decolonization, and other issues such as rising global health crises. Advocates of the reform argue that the UNSC is out of date, unrepresentative, and consistently fails to address contemporary challenges in the modern world. They believe that today’s problems such as terrorism, global warming, and tensions in Africa and the Middle East, among others make it critical to have a UNSC that is more representative and capable of resolving these issues not only by military might but also through diplomatic channels. These states insist that resolution of global issues is only achievable if the UNSC can be truly representative, with the caveat that failing to do so will result in the UNSC losing its legitimacy and global influence.

The UNSC is unrepresentative in two ways: first, 4 of the 5 permanent seats are held by Western powers, despite the fact that they account for just 26% of the global population.  No country from the global south holds a seat. Conversely, the UN is statistically dominated by post-colonial nations facing challenges around poverty and conflict. Such governments require institutional help to address these issues. They are concerned that these industrialized nations, with immense financial and military resources, will try to assert control over them, as the US did in the case of Venezuela when the country defied the capitalist order.

Secondly, the UNSC no longer represents nations with the highest potential to contribute to global peace and order as envisaged by the UN’s architects in 1945. The case for awarding a permanent seat to nations like as the United Kingdom, France, and Russia weakens over time as their political and economic influence diminishes while that of Japan, India, and Germany develops. For example, taking economic strength into account, Germany and Japan contribute as much as the United States and more than the rest of the P5 to the maintenance of global peace and order. Military justifications have also waned as the nuclear club extended beyond the initial five countries.

Therefore, since the geopolitical landscape is complicated and evolving, any conclusions on these matters will never be precise or without doubt. Reorganisation, however, is the safest alternative for integrating diverse interests in the decision-making process and thereby strengthening the UNSC’s credibility.

Collected proposals and emerging oppositions

Various groups of countries have banded together to tackle this problem and have made several proposals to restructure the UNSC. 

The Group of Four’s (G4) (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) proposal has been the most significant one to date. The G4 suggests expanding the UNSC to include these four nations as permanent members, as well as two “unspecified” African countries, all of whom are major military or monetary contributors to the UN or the most populous in their respective regions. This could provide a truer representation of contemporary geopolitical reality. A representative council would provide more legitimacy and credibility due to its capability to carry out tasks on behalf of all members. Inclusion of both developed and developing countries, allows states with varying economic structures to be represented.

Regional rivalries, however,  permeate an environment of hostility. Pakistan and Indonesia oppose India’s inclusion because they believe it cannot represent the concerns of South Asian Muslims. Similarly, Mexico and Argentina argue that Brazil, Latin America’s economic and geopolitical power, cannot represent the largely Spanish-influenced region as a former Portuguese colony. Among African countries, there are distinct interests between and among sub-Saharan countries and the predominantly-Arab North African nations. As a consequence of such regional rivalries, UN member-states such as Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, Italy, Canada, and other middle powers without any prospect of a permanent seat (known as Uniting for Consensus), suggest a fresh UNSC reform in which they would keep the makeup of the P5 members unchanged and instead expand the number of non-permanent members from 10 to 20.

Another significant proposal has come from the African Union, with Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria, and Senegal requesting 2 permanent members for Africa and 5 extra non-permanent members globally. Under this proposal, there would be one non-permanent seat for Asia, one for South America and the Caribbean, one for Eastern Europe, and two for Africa. 

A packaged solution

The international community needs a new proposal with a greater capacity for buy-in. Three superpowers, China, Russia, and the US, should retain permanent seats with substantive veto power. However, France and the UK will have to give up their permanent seats in exchange for a shared permanent rotating two-year seat with substantial veto power among the UK, France, and Germany. In addition, this proposal would establish three permanent regional rotating two-year seats with procedural veto power for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In terms of Asia, India, Japan, and Indonesia will share power. In Latin America, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina will alternate representing their region, and in Africa, Egypt, South Africa, and Nigeria will rotate seats.

These regional permanent seats would be filled on a rotational basis. Moreover, there is no one state from any of these regions that would be a perfect representative of the whole continent. While France and the UK appear to suffer the most in terms of stature under this proposal, they have failed to justify the retention of a permanent seat, both politically, militarily and economically. They no longer wield the same power and influence that they possessed when the UN was formed. Furthermore, if Germany is granted a permanent seat, as proposed by the G4, that would make three members for the Western European region. Such a move would defeat the  purpose of reducing the influence that the global north holds in the Council. Additionally, Japan’s selection would also increase the industrialized nations’ hegemony, and nations such as the UK, France, and the US would want Japan to obtain a seat in the UNSC since in light of their  deep diplomatic relationships with it and expectations that Japan would vote identically to them. 

Another virtue of this proposal is that extending procedural veto power to regional seats of Asia, Africa, and Latin America would counter veto proliferation. A veto of this kind would not end the debate, but would send it to a special session of the General Assembly (UNGA) for deliberation.

For a long time, UN member-nations have been at odds with one another. Reform fatigue is commonplace amongst diplomats, who are ready to abandon the process if no agreement is reached soon. I believe that the proposal outlined in this article considers and balances regional interests to produce a win-win situation for all. The road ahead appears to be challenging, but with a few compromises, a representative Security Council is not a distant dream.


Kanishka Bhukya is a third-year law student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. His areas of interest include International Financial Law, Sovereign Debt Restructuring, Banking and Finance, and Geopolitics. The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Govindraj G. Hegde for mentoring him and assisting him in writing this paper.