About the United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was established in 1946 as one of the six main organs of the newly-formed United Nations. The primary objective and overarching mandate of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council has the power to use punitive measures against a disruptive state through the use of complete or partial interruption of economic relations and the severance of diplomatic relations. The Security Council can also authorize military intervention against a specific state by asking member states to provide armed forces to serve under the auspices of the United Nations. The Security Council authorized the use of military force in the case of the Korean War in 1950 and the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait in 1990.

​

As per the United Nations Charter, the Security Council consists of ten elected members, and five permanent members: the People’s Republic of China (formerly the Republic of China), the Republic of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, and the Russian Federation (formerly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). The five permanent states each have veto power, the ability to unilaterally strike down any action proposed by the council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that all member states of the United Nations are obligated to implement. The ten non-permanent members of the Security Council are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.

​

According to the Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is primarily responsible for “the maintenance of international peace and security”. Additionally, in accordance to Articles 40 through 42, the Security Council can make recommendations to “prevent an aggravation of a situation” and may authorise the use of armed force, should previous measures taken have proven to be inadequate to prevent the escalation of a conflict. Other forms of action the Security Council can undertake includes the recommendation to parties in conflict, to reach a peaceful agreement by setting principles for an agreement, undertake investigation or mediation, or sending a special envoy from the Secretary-General office. If the conflict is leading to hostilities, the SC can decide to dispatch peacekeeping forces, or “opt for enforcement measures” such as sanctions, blockades, and collective military actions.

​

As a whole, the UNSC is one of the most effective and respected organs of the UN as a whole. The question surrounding the veto power possessed by the permanent five is simple: despite being granted such influence, it is rarely enacted by the member states. In fact most of the recent UNSC resolutions are passed unanimously, by acclamation, or have one or two dissenters. The United States typically exercises its veto when voting on resolutions concerning the State of Israel, as well as unfavourable actions in the Middle East, former Soviet States and the South China Sea. More often than not however, it is Russia who vetoes resolutions concerning Iran, Syria, the Middle East, and the former Soviet states. While China historically exercises its right when concerning the South China Sea. As a whole, a veto may be used once every two to five years (on average) and is a sparing power that does not typically hamper the progress of the Security Council’s work.

​

There is however, a contrast between the ideology of UNSC members. Though generally speaking all members can agree on the combating of terrorism, the method undertaken can be disputed. More obviously, this lack of cohesion is evident when concerning a civil war or regional conflict. As a result of this, the UNSC has had many failures in the past, contrasted by many success stories, as well as those that can be interpreted in either direction. These can include the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian War, the Korean War, the Syrian War, and the situation in Israel and Palestine.

​

​

Reforming the Security Council: The Kofi Annan Plan

With the shortcomings of the Security Council in mind, it is not surprising to learn that there have been attempts at amending the United Nations Charter and changing the UNSC’s operational behaviours. While this has been a common theme over the United Nation’s lifespan, the most prominent push for reform came from former Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2005.

​

Although he did not specify which option he preferred, the United Nations secretariat settled on two options for reform:

• Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new non-permanent members for a total of 24 seats in the council.

• Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one non-permanent seat, also for a total of 24.

There was also many other proposals by other nations, most notably the Uniting for Consensus group, led by the delegations of Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, and Pakistan - which was the source of much controversy and contention.

​

The failure of the Kofi Annan Plan came down to a vote in the General Assembly, wherein the dissenters ultimately voted against the resolution citing concerns over the selection of the new permanent members. This largely came down to regional disputes and a ‘zero sum game’ strategy. For example, the delegations of India and Pakistan were both front runners for permanent member status, to the delight of each respective nation. However, when it came time to vote, both nations cited their concern that the other would be given the position over their own nation; and as a preventative measure, both voted against such that neither would have new, significant power over the other.

​

Such an issue was also raised in the ‘African Bloc’ as the nations of Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria expressed similar concerns, and cited the same reasoning for their voting against the resolution. Likewise in the ‘European and Other’ as well as ‘South American Bloc’ candidates - Canada, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea (which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea opposed), Brazil, Lithuania and Uruguay - had the same line of thought.

​

As a result, the Kofi Annan plan failed due to this main reason, although initial backrooming suggested that there would be an overwhelming majority in favour. This was supported by the nations after the vote, suggesting that there could be a more pragmatic solution. The Permanent Five members also expressed regret that such reform could not be achieved, and hoped to strive for a new plan - something that has been enacted for RSCMUN.