UNSC Reform in a Post-Cold War Era: Eliminating the Power of Veto

The culmination of the Cold War period marked significant changes in the international system. The division of power shifted from the influence of a bipolar world in which the Soviet Union and United States were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, to the development of what is now dually classified as a unipolar and/or multipolar world, in which democracy has flourished. The new world order has also signaled the rise in power of several mid-level countries, not to mention the emergence of numerous new developing nations. As a result, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has also seen various changes, from a more prominent human rights and peacekeeping agenda to a greater inclination for member state cooperation. However, aside from these changes there has also been increased criticism as to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the institution. These critics, particularly in the form of UN members, have called for the UNSC to be reformed. They argue that the UNSC needs to be more reflective of the twenty-first century, more representative of its heavily increased members and overall more transparent throughout its decision-making process. This call for change has sparked several reform proposals, from increasing the number of permanent members who sit on the Council, to once again merely increasing the size of the Council’s non-permanent membership, to the more controversial option of eliminating the power of veto. Although there is a general consensus among UN members that reform of the Council is necessary, there has been a longstanding debate as to what this reform should entail and how it will be implemented in order to maximize UNSC efficiency. In response to this dispute this paper will argue that if the objective of restructuring the Council is enhancing both its effectiveness and legitimacy, then the most viable option for reform is the elimination of the power of veto held by its five permanent members (P-5).