The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held its first session in 1946, and it is the primary body responsible for maintaining global peace and security. Born from the failures of the League of Nations, its foundational mission, as outlined in the United Nations (UN) Charter, is to prevent future global conflicts, foster cooperation among nations, and serve as a platform for conflict resolution. Unlike other UN organs, the UNSC's resolutions are binding on member states, solidifying its pivotal role on the global stage.
Structure and Powers
The UNSC comprises 15 members: five permanent members (P5), China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, each holding veto power over substantive resolutions, and ten non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms without veto power. This inherent imbalance of authority, which has remained unchanged since the UNSC's establishment, is a central point of contention for many emerging nations and donor countries, raising significant questions about fairness, equity, and the underrepresentation of key regions such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The Council's powers are extensive, encompassing the authority to investigate disputes, recommend solutions, authorize peacekeeping operations, impose sanctions, and even authorize military action. A resolution requires at least nine affirmative votes and, crucially, no veto from any of the P5 members. This structure, while allowing for decisive action, also creates significant potential tensions, particularly when national interests diverge. Nonetheless, the necessity of veto power is often debated, with both positive and negative factors associated with it.
Key Tools and Their Impact
Peacekeeping operations are a central instrument of the UNSC, deploying personnel to maintain stability, protect civilians, and support political transitions in conflict zones worldwide. Sanctions, permitted under Article 41 of the UN Charter, serve as another major tool. Article 41 mentions that the Security Council can take measures that do not involve the use of armed forces to maintain or restore international peace and security. These measures can include the interruption of economic relations, communication systems (like postal, telegraph, radio, etc.), and diplomatic relations. Essentially, Article 41 empowers the Security Council to impose sanctions and other non-military measures to compel compliance with its resolutions. These also include arms embargoes, and travel bans, asset freezes, and trade restrictions, aimed at pressuring actors before resorting to military force. However, sanctions often face criticism regarding their effectiveness and potential humanitarian consequences. The Council also plays a crucial role in counterterrorism efforts, particularly against groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, through targeted sanctions and mandated operations. Such counterterrorism efforts are praiseworthy since they support global peace and security.
Performance and Criticisms: A Mixed Record
The UNSC's performance in specific crises offers both successes and significant failures. Its inability to act decisively during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, despite early warnings, resulted in the tragic loss of lives. According to (Ratsch, 2022), “The utter failure of the United Nations and larger global community to do anything about the genocide is one of the greatest humanitarian failures of the twentieth century, and maybe even human history.” Similarly, (Editors, 2024) stated that “Russia and China cast multiple vetoes on Syria-related Security Council resolutions, and the threat of veto deterred or watered-down humanitarian and human rights measures, reinforcing a view of the council as toothless.” In contrast, the Council's authorisation of a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 (Resolution 1973) received majority positive remarks in light of the swift decision taken.
It is seen that the veto power remains a persistent concern, often prioritising national interests over global peace and leading to paralysis during crises, thereby undermining the Council's legitimacy. This is because with veto power comes the enormous power of exerting influence single-handedly. As per (Mirel, n.d.), “the veto power seems to walk a thin line of legality within international law. Firstly, vetoing resolutions against human rights abuses may be contrary to the UN’s charter, as Article 24 directly tasks the Security Council with ‘maintaining international peace and security’ with ‘prompt and effective action’. Since the prevention of human rights violations (particularly in cases as grave as genocide) often concerns ‘international security,’ the usage of a veto threatens the P5’s Charter mandate and prevents ‘prompt and effective’ response. Furthermore, although Article 2(1) sets out that all states are ‘sovereign equals’, Article 27(3) effectively acknowledges that some states are superior to others by bestowing just 5 nations with veto powers. While denying the superior economic or political influence of certain states would be denying abject reality, it is questionable whether this power should allow these states to single-handedly halt an international call for action.
Therefore, the veto power has received mixed remarks. While some argue it serves as a necessary check among major powers, its use, even in instances of unity like the COVID-19 pandemic resolution, continuously raises questions about equity and fairness. The enormous power possessed by a few, which can be utilized for their betterment or interests, can have repercussions on other countries.
The Imperative for Reform
The UNSC faces long-standing criticisms that have gained renewed urgency in the current geopolitical climate. These include an outdated structure that has not evolved with changing global dynamics, a severe lack of regional representation, especially from the Global South, and an overreliance on the P5, which frequently results in gridlock and inaction. Calls for reform have gained significant momentum, driven by both principled arguments for fairness and pragmatic concerns about the Council's effectiveness.
Further, another disadvantage emanating from veto use is that, in addition to outright vetoes, the mere ‘threat of veto’ or ‘pocket veto’ significantly shapes the Council's agenda and the content of resolutions. This persistent use of the veto continues to fuel arguments that it prioritizes narrow national interests over the collective good and undermines the Council's moral authority and operational legitimacy.
Current State of UNSC Reform Efforts and Challenges
The G4 countries (Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil) continue to actively lobby for permanent status, arguing their economic, demographic, and geopolitical relevance. Similarly, the African Union, through the Ezulwini Consensus, steadfastly calls for permanent seats for African states. A notable recent development aimed at increasing accountability is the General Assembly’s “Veto Initiative,” adopted in April 2022. This resolution mandates that the General Assembly convene a formal debate whenever a P5 member casts a veto, provided the Assembly has not already held an emergency special session on the same issue. While the initiative does not directly limit the veto, it requires the vetoing state to publicly explain its decision and creates a forum for the broader UN membership to scrutinise the action. By doing so, it increases transparency and holds P5 members politically accountable for exercising their veto, though it does not limit their actual veto power.
Expanding on Specific Functions and Challenges
UN peacekeeping faces evolving challenges. Beyond traditional state-on-state conflicts, peacekeepers now confront complex asymmetric threats from non-state armed groups, urban warfare environments, and the spread of disinformation that undermines their credibility and safety. Ensuring adequate and predictable funding, adapting to these new conflict dynamics, and preventing instances of misconduct (e.g., sexual exploitation and abuse) remain critical operational hurdles. The UN's “New Agenda for Peace,” proposed by the Secretary-General, aims to re-evaluate and adapt peacekeeping to these contemporary realities.
While targeted sanctions are preferred over comprehensive ones to mitigate humanitarian impact, their effectiveness remains a subject of debate. Critics point to the difficulty of enforcing sanctions, the ease with which some targeted entities circumvent them, and the lingering potential for unintended humanitarian consequences. The UN continuously refines its sanctions architecture, focusing on precision and regular review, but ensuring compliance and genuine behavioral change from targeted actors remains a complex challenge.
Dependence on the Security Council: R2P
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine remains a fragile concept. Its implementation largely depends on the political will of the P5. As argued by (Holmes, 2014), R2P is a fragile and aspirational doctrine because its implementation depends entirely on the UN Security Council. While the 2005 General Assembly resolutions established that each state has a duty to protect its population, collective action requires Security Council approval on a case-by-case basis. This means that the P5 members’ political interests and veto rights ultimately determine whether R2P is applied.
The author illustrates this with Libya and Syria: intervention was allowed in Libya but blocked in Syria due to opposition from Russia. Consequently, R2P is often subordinate to national sovereignty and Realpolitik, making it an inconsistent and weak principle in practice. The author’s analysis highlights how the UNSC veto power severely limits the operationalization of R2P. Even when the international community agrees that intervention is morally necessary, a single P5 member can prevent action, rendering R2P aspirational rather than operational. This demonstrates that the veto prioritizes state interests over humanitarian imperatives, constraining the UN’s ability to respond to crises. In effect, the veto transforms R2P from a normative principle into a tool whose application depends more on geopolitical considerations than on the protection of civilians, reinforcing the structural limitations of the Security Council in upholding international humanitarian norms.
Role of Non-Permanent Members
Despite lacking veto power, the ten elected non-permanent members (E10) play an increasingly vital role. They often serve as bridge-builders, consensus-seekers, and advocates for specific regional or thematic issues that might otherwise be overlooked. Non-permanent members frequently take the lead in drafting resolutions, chairing crucial subsidiary bodies (like sanctions committees), and influencing the Council's work when they assume the rotating presidency. While influential, their ability to effect substantive change is limited without veto power, requiring coalition-building and strategic diplomacy.
Adaptation
The UN Security Council remains a cornerstone of global governance, but its legitimacy and relevance in the 21st century are critically dependent on its willingness to adapt. For it to remain credible and just, it must address power imbalances, institutional inertia, and the urgent need for broader representation. In a rapidly changing world, characterized by intensified geopolitical competition and evolving threats, peace, justice, and equity require not just strong institutions but responsive and responsible ones. The time to recalibrate the Council is not only necessary, but long overdue.
Charani L Charithma M. Patabendige is an Attorney-at-Law of the Supreme Court of Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. She is currently serving as an Acting Research Analyst and Research Assistant at the Institute of National Security Studies, Ministry of Defence.
The Opinions expressed are her own and do not represent the views of her employer or any affiliated organisation.