The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, called in September 2003 for the reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), in order to make it more effective and more representative, given the changed geopolitical realities. Diverse problems affect both the efficiency and the representative character of the UNSC like the the veto power and the number and nature of the permanent and non-permanent members. Criticisms are numerous, blaming a 'nuclear powers club' and a no longer legitimate veto power for some of the permanent members that are not top countries anymore, such as Britain and France. Is democratic representation appealed by the members of the UN, or at least by the most powerful ones who would have to renounce to their dominant position in the Security Council? Will the UN have to choose between democracy and efficiency?
[...] Another relevant problem is that the article 44 of the UN Charter, taxation without representation' has never been used, what also questions the legitimacy of the UNSC structure as it is now. Of course, the UNSC has to be characterized by its ‘ability to produce cooperative resolutions'[3], but what about the legitimacy of these resolutions, if they are made by a few powerful countries? There is a real ‘paralysis' on that topic, Weiss explains. Everybody agrees that there should be ‘more states added to the UNSC' and that there should be more proportionality to funding and population: some countries are overrepresented and others underrepresented.[4] There are also ‘demands to increase the openness (transparency) and efficiency of the council's work', even though there has been progress in this field. [...]
[...] Nevertheless, Karns and Mingst add that progress was made, if not formally, by making non member nations contribute to the decision-making if they are contributors in troops and material in the case of interventions decisions. Some discussions are also more and more opened to NGO representatives. There is also more information provided on the nature and results of discussions, and on the countries' declaration. Since 2000, presidential statements and resolutions are available to non-members as soon as they are produced. [...]
[...] Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a democratic organization, saying that it represents the interests of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations. This is an even more difficult problem to deal with, since it is logistically apparently impossible to solve. International Organizations, The Politics and Processes of Global Governance, Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst, Rienner, Colorado “Overcoming the Security Council Reform Impasse, The Implausible versus the Plausible”, Thomas G. [...]
[...] The reform has to keep in pace with the balance defined by Wallensteen in 1994, quoted by Karns and Mingst[6]: the UNSC has to ‘increase the number of members for geographic representation and enhanced legitimacy, while maintaining a small enough size to ensure efficiency'. According to Karns and Mingst, the UNSC ‘retains a high degree of legitimacy', but this legitimacy does not seem to be justified. In effect, participations, even as a non permanent member, to the UNSC is a status and a privilege: there is a symbolic importance that we can see in the difficulty that exists to delegitimize some actions and decisions of the UNSC, still considered as most authoritative body within the UN', even though it is obviously not as representative and efficient as it should be. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
