United Nations Security Council And Its Role In Maintaining International Peace And Security

Introduction to the United Nations and Its Charter

The united nations security council (UNSC) was formed in 1945 as a subgroup under the United nations(UN). The UN’s purpose was to essentially maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about peaceful means, in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace. Aside from that, the UN intends to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in essence to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. The General assembly, the security council, the trusteeship council, the economic and social council, the secretariat and the international court of justice are some of the main several organs that aid in fulfilling their purpose. As such, the introduction to the United Nations charter itself makes it extremely clear that the overriding objective of the UN is the maintenance of international peace and security. The UNSC upon which the UN charter grants the primary responsibility in the maintenance if international peace and security. 

The UNSC is one of the only UN organ that has the power to make binding decisions that impact the outcomes of the UNSC. To add, its functions include the identifying of the existence of threats to peace and acts of aggression, recommending that disputing parties settle their disagreements peacefully, the imposition of sanctions as well as the authorization of the use of force to preserve or restore international peace and security. The layout and capacity is a fundamental initial step for deciding its prosperity. It comprises of 15 individuals, 5 of which are long-lasting and have blackball power (the P5). These were considered the main military powers when the UN was founded and their veto right would prevent them from going to war against each other, while creating a necessary balance when taking decisions on security issues that would be collectively enforced. Given powers to the 5 polar nations (UK,US, France, Russia and China), has been a problem as poorer nations are at the mercy of these countries. The non-permanent members states currently on the council are Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Sweden, Ukraine and Uruguay. The UN charter provides the voting practice to be implemented in the UNSC. Article 27 of the UN charter provides for two separate voting regulations in case of procedural and non-procedural matters. 

Aside from that, the charter provides that the minimum number of agreeing votes necessary for a resolution on procedural matters to be passed, by the UNSC members, is nine while a vote on non-procedural matters requires a minimum of nine affirmative votes including the concurring votes of the permanent members. Hence, the permanent members have a unilateral right to veto non-procedural resolutions as the negative vote of any permanent member. The permanent members have a unilateral right to veto non-procedural resolutions as the negative vote of any permanent member results in the failure, in passing, of non-procedural resolutions. This can be seen as one of the major criticisms of the UNSC as one VETO power from one of the 5 powerful nations is able to create a drastic change in efforts to help improve situations in countries in need of help. Hence, politicians and scholars hold view that they are critical of the UN stating that the international organization is inefficient, uninvolved and has resulted in dishonour. The bulk of the criticisms are directed at the UNSC which is the central mechanism in the UN structure and is the organ which assumes the most power.

Functions and Powers of the UNSC

China, France, the USSR, which was replaced by the Russian Federation, the UK and the United States were envisaged of as the five nations that would continue to play vital roles in maintaining peace and security because of their essential involvement in the founding of the UN. They were given the "right to veto" in the Security Council, which gives them exceptional status and voting authority. According to the drafters, any decision made by the fifteen member Security Council that included a negative vote from even one permanent member would be rejected.

At some point, each of the five permanent members has employed his or her veto power. As long as there are enough votes for a resolution to pass, a permanent member may not vote against the resolution. This lets the resolution pass if it has enough votes from the other members. Some of India's political parties have been feuding about it for some time now. Historically, political parties have used this stance to veto a particular subject since the country gained its independence in 1947. One of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, India could have exercised its veto authority if it so desired, according to information received.  Note that a member's decision not to vote does not thwart the adoption of the draught resolution.

When it comes to voting procedures, the permanent members have the last say, hence this veto authority does not apply to them. The appointment of a Secretary-General can also be rejected by a permanent member, although a formal veto is not required because the voting is held behind closed doors. The veto authority is disputed. Supporters consider it as a booster of global stability, a check on military involvement, and a crucial bulwark against United States control. The veto, according to its detractors, is the UN's most undemocratic feature and the primary reason for the body's inactivity on matters of war criminal offences.

As a result of Russia's rejection of a UNSC resolution on Ukraine, the 15 members of the body will vote once more on Sunday, this time to summon a rare urgent special session of the whole 193-member UN General Assembly for discussion. Procedures dictate that the 5 permanent UN members are unable to veto this motion. It just takes nine votes in support and is sure to pass. General Assembly has held just ten emergency sessions since 1950, mostly focusing on Israel-Palestine conflict issues."

A veto is a no-vote, and it is the most fundamental distinction between members who are appointed and those who are not. A total of 15 members makes up the United Nations Security council, the UN's most powerful organ, which includes five P5 members and ten non-permanent members chosen for two-year terms. The P5 countries are China, Russia,  France, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America (USA). Members who are not on a permanent basis at the United Nations include: Estonia; India; Ireland; Kenya; Mexico; Niger; Norway; Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines; Tunisia; Vietnam.

Article 27 (3) of the United Nations Charter states that "the unanimous votes of the current members" are required for all relevant Council decisions. In order to protect their country's interests or to support a foreign policy principle, permanent members might use vetoes to oppose draught resolutions. Occasionally, a country will put forth a resolution to the UNSC knowing full well that it will be vetoed. This is done to indicate symbolic support for a particular subject and to keep track of the viewpoints held by the members of the council.

Composition of the UNSC

All five permanent members of the General Assembly cannot exercise their veto when a resolution is put to a vote. Member nations are not bound by these statements, however, as opposed to Security Council decisions. Such resolutions, he said, have political sway. In Bangladesh's freedom, a same scenario happened. A resolution calling on India and Pakistan to put an end to their hostilities and withdraw their forces was passed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1971 after the Soviet Union vetoed it. Of course, none of this was binding.

There were 104 in favour, 11 against, and 10 abstentions in the Assembly. China and Pakistan voted for the resolution, but India and several Eastern European nations voted against it. Nearly half of all vetoes have been cast by the USSR/Russia over the years. On March 17, 1970, the United States vetoed its first of 83 vetoes to date. 107 vetoes had been cast by the USSR by this time. With more vetoes than any other member of the UN Security Council since 1970, the United States has regularly blocked resolutions that it believes are harmful to Israel's interests. The first time the UK exercised its veto was on October 30th, 1956, during the Suez crisis.

France initially used its veto on the Spanish Question on June 26, 1946, and has since used it 18 times.

After the People's Republic of China (PRC) became a permanent member on October 25, 1971, China used the veto 16 times, with first one cast on December 14, 1955, by the Republic of China (ROC).

In 1991, following the Col War, things began to alter. On December 23, 1989 (S/21048) France and the United Kingdom used their vetoes to block a resolution that would have denounced the United States' invasion of Panama. Since 1997, China has used the veto more frequently than any other country, casting 13 of its 16 vetoes. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Russia has used its veto 24 times, while the United States has used it 16 times.

More over half of Russia's veto votes have been cast on Syria since 2011. Following the Russian vetoes that took place in 2011 against two resolutions about Ukraine, one about Srebrenica, one about sanctions against Yemen and another on Venezuela, there were only four more Russian vetoes that took place since then.

During this time period, China exercised nine vetoes, eight of which were over Syria and one which was over Venezuela. With respect to Israel/Palestine, the United States has exercised its veto power three times since 2011. So to summarise: Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have the ability to exercise their right to veto, which originally meant. In Indian politics as well, it's been a long-running bone of contention. There are several examples of countries using it for their own political or economic advantage. The present state of affairs in Ukraine has led many across the world to re-evaluate the members' veto authority.

Both sides of the political spectrum have viewed the United Nations from the beginning. On the liberal side, there are many who regard the UN as a symbol of the concept of shared security. In the words of the proponents of this concept, "international security is inseparable; a violation of the peace anywhere affects the peace everywhere." Consequently, they look to the UNSC to play a role in repressing any danger to world peace and consider the Security Council's history as a combination of success and failure. Realists, on the other hand, believe that the Security Council's primary role is to serve as a forum for the world's superpowers to settle their issues. They argue that the Security Council has been effective in averting a third global war in line with the founders' goals. However, this association is controversial and impossible to prove, as there may have been other factors at play, such as the dread of a nuclear holocaust, that prevented the start of another world war. A balance of power logic underpins theory and practise in the United Nations Security Council, which is embodied in both the Security Council's structure as well as its policies. As a result, the advocates of veto power are now convinced to widen this to those who seek permanent Security Council membership. However, there are detractors to both of these competing viewpoints. There is a problem with the concept of a "balancing power" since there is an issue about how to quantify "power," which makes it difficult to put into effect.

Voting Procedures in the UNSC

Attempts to establish a global body charged with maintaining international harmony and stability predate the United Nations. There was a League of Nations between World Wars I and II. Problems beset the League because of an atmosphere of mistrust in international interactions and because of the organization's design. As a precursor to both the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly, it had issues with a voting mechanism based on consensus. This meant that in practise, each member of the League could say no. When World War II broke out, the League was no more. A new worldwide effort to avert conflict was launched as the second half of the 1940s neared, however. As a result of the conclusion of the conflict, a chance arose to do so. The UN's founding fathers significantly curtailed the veto power after learning from the League's mistakes.

Attempts to establish a global body charged with maintaining international harmony and stability predate the United Nations. The United nations existed throughout the interwar period. Problems afflicted the United nations because of an atmosphere of mistrust in international interactions and because of the organization's design. A consensus-based voting system was one of its problems. This led to the Security Council and General Assembly, both of which are now called the Security Council. League members had a veto power in practise. When World War II broke out, the League of Nations was no more. International cooperation was once again being sought to prevent conflict as the second half of the 1940s approached. As a result of the conclusion of the conflict, a chance arose to do so. The UN's founding fathers learned from the League of Nations' mistakes and reduced the veto significantly.

International law stresses ethical and moral principles and opposes the use of force as a tool of statecraft, annexations, aggressions between states, colonialism and imperialism; nevertheless, where was the international law when the legitimacy and efficacy of the United Nations Security Council were questioned in the Korean War of 1962, the Cuban missile crisis of 1963 and, of course, the cold war of 1963. As a result of these battles, it became clear that international norms and processes only applied to weak governments, while powerful states routinely flout them and escaped consequences. For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been unable to be resolved by diplomacy because of the veto-power system. U.S. unilaterally vetoed all Arab/Israeli issues from 1970-2011, making it impossible for the UN to find a lasting solution. Russian vetoes have also been used to restrict UNSC efforts to resolve conflicts and wars between Russia and Ukraine since 2011, including the investigation into the downing of Flight MH17 over the Ukrainian border, despite Russia's forceful annexation of the border. Russia has also used its veto to support the Syrian government during the Syrian civil war since 2011. All UNSC demands to stop Aleppo's indiscriminate bombardment were rejected by Russia because of its veto authority.

Many nations in the developing regions of Africa, the Middle East, and portions of Asia have fallen prey to tyranny and hegemony because to veto power holders' constant involvement and influence in the global system. For example, Russia and China have vetoed against all UNSC efforts in 2006 to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons because of economic considerations, despite the dire ramifications surrounding nuclear power acquisition. Both Russia and China have been major supporters of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's administration in spite of the political crimes committed by Mugabe, and have consistently opposed UNSC resolutions since 2006.

Criticism of the UNSC and Its Veto Power

The world system has been exposed to constant wars and conflicts because the world's major powers haven't been able to trust and respect each other's interests, ideologies, beliefs, and territorial sovereignty. As a result, poor countries have little option but to spend their limited resources, time, and energy on the acquisition of advanced weapons of mass devastation in order to implement respect and generate fear. As a result, every other component that may have contributed to global technical development in terms of the economy, politics, or society has been overlooked. Vetoes have had an enormous impact on the international system, and their impact is unprecedented in terms of their impact on international relations. Despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding its use were not morally or ethically acceptable, this study makes no qualms about pointing out how it has served as the primary tool for paralysing any attempts to settle problems. The international order has been reduced to a condition of impunity and arms competition. This tendency has been reversed by a race to the top in the form of a worldwide armaments race to impose justice, correct for global imbalances in power and acknowledgement, and address national feelings, coexistence struggles, and political emancipation. All the political - strategic humiliations and conditions that threaten their national safety and stability have motivated them to seek retaliation. With regard to sanctions against governments that violate United Nations treaties or charters, the p5 have the sole authority to determine and decide how such sanctions are applied, marginalising the weaker nations in the global system and making them less important in international affairs.

Finally, the veto power system in global politics has a number of negative effects for the whole world. As Karl Max asserted, "nearly all men can handle adversity," but "giving a man authority is the only way to test his actual character," and the veto system was intended to be used for diplomatic discussions in times of conflict that may develop to full-scale war. In other words, rather of using their total power to explain the very nature of world peace, the P5 use it to intimidate vulnerable states and administrations.

For this study, the researcher has used doctrinal research where the case studies where the incidents of inappropriate use of powers by the veto power authorised nations will be discussed. These methods are designed for the goal of gathering and organising legal information, providing context and comments on the sources consulted, and finally outlining the overarching theme or system that underpins all of the legal sources.

Contract and property law are notable examples of areas of law where doctrinal technique works well. To substantiate a theory, a researcher uses critical, qualitative study of legal documents. Researchers must identify particular legal rules, then describe the rule's legal meaning, its underlying principles, and the process of making a judgement in accordance with this rule.  Additionally, he or she should be able to see any inconsistencies in the legislation and suggest ways to fix them. The rule itself, instances created by the rule, legislative history when appropriate, and comments and literature on the rule are all sources of data in doctrinal study.

History and Impact of UNSC Decisions

An advantage of this technique is that it gives you a clear framework for developing a thesis, setting up your paper, and allowing you to define and explain the rule in great detail. These negatives include being excessively formalistic and oversimplifying the legal theory, which can be problematic.

Law may be studied in terms of the history of law, as well as its current state of affairs, as well as how it can evolve or change in future. This is all part of a doctrinal methodology. For the most part it's related with positivist legal study, which focuses on the law as it is rather than assessing its morality or efficacy. It is common for legal study to begin with an emphasis on the law's doctrinal aspects, but this approach is not always adequate.

Many academics and government officials have expressed their dissatisfaction at Russia and China's veto of the Myanmar draught proposal. Human rights crimes were condemned, military attacks on civilians in Myanmar were halted, and a platform for political discussion between opposing factions was created as a result of the resolution. Since the collapse of democratic government in 1962, the people of Myanmar have been subjected to grave abuses of human rights. Forcible labour, torture, and sexual assault are among the many human rights violations that have been documented, in addition to the extrajudicial executions of more than a million individuals. Women from ethnic minorities are routinely raped by the military government, which is also to blame for the destruction of cities and communities. There was widespread condemnation of the unrest in Myanmar by the world community at large. Myanmar's military government immediately hiked gasoline prices by 500 percent after vetoing the draught resolution leading in the Saffron Revolution in which hundreds of monks marched peacefully against the military government. 'Saffron Revolution' The Government reacted with heavy-handed arrests of peaceful activists in response to the protest. According to the UK's UN envoy, he is deeply concerned about the situation in Myanmar and has urged the Security Council to proceed with its investigation. Myanmar's military administration was denounced by the US ambassador, who said that in its quest for political dominance at the expense of the interests of the country's own civilian population, it had committed grave abuses of human rights. 136 As the US representative pointed out, the crisis in Myanmar was endangering the stability of the international community as a whole. Council members were not able to pass the resolution because the representatives of China and Russia stated that Myanmar's position posed no danger to world peace and security. In this case, Russia and China's vetoes ensured that human rights breaches would continue to grow in the nation.

The Syrian war has long been a source of heated debate both throughout the world and at secret meetings of the UN Security Council. Since 2011, China and Russia have each rejected at least seven proposed and applied dealing with the Syrian crisis. As far as the Syrian war is concerned, only the latest rejected draught resolution on 12 April 2017 that Russia vetoed and China abstained from voting was not blocked by both countries. Conflict in Syria began in March 2011 with protests against the administration of Syrian president Bashar Al-Asaad, who had jailed and tortured adolescents for painting revolutionary slogans.. The Arab Spring was an umbrella term for a number of protests that took place across the area at the same time. In response to protests against Syria's president, which have been going on since 1971, the government has opened fire on protestors, hurting and murdering a number of innocent citizens. Armed citizens fought back against the government's attempts to disperse the demonstrations, which only served to exacerbate public dissatisfaction with the Al Assaad regime. Armed citizens enlisted the help of foreign Islamic extremist enemy soldiers to drive the government forces from their neighbourhoods. Anti-government factions battled regime forces for control of cities as a result of the civil war. There were at least 90,000 deaths and an estimated 11 million people displaced as a result of the violence in 2013. From a simple Al-Assaad vs the people struggle, the situation has grown more complex due to factors such as the establishment of the Islamic State and involvement of regional and global forces.

Many believe that the Cold War's politics never died with the war's conclusion, and that we now live in a world divided between east and west, with superpowers motivated by ideological differences that pervade their aspirations and aims. For Russia and China's engagement in Syria, one can see that they want to keep the current president in power and prevent him from being replaced by someone who is pro-Western. Israel has had the same level of political cover and protection from the United States in recent decades, with the same level of polarisation. In the opinion of many scholars, this is a significant departure from what was originally envisioned when the UN's veto authority was established.

As a result of Russia and China exercising their veto power on resolutions aiming to end the genocide and numerous human rights abuses occurring in Syria, the carnage has continued unabated. After the fall of the regime of President Assad, terrorist groups such as the Islamic State arose among the ruins and dead to look after the interests of the innocent civilians. Today, Islamic State has proved its ability to secure and defend vital territory in the Middle East, far from being merely a global terrorist group.

There has not been a single veto exercised by the United Kingdom (UK) or France between 1990 and 2017. It was in 1989 when France and the United Kingdom used their veto power to block a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Panama. This draught resolution was vetoed by the US, France, and the UK. You could think that the permanent members of the Security Council have become passive, but this is far from the reality. As Okhovat points out, permanent members of the Security Council want to minimise the negative public relations consequences of exercising their veto power, but at the same time, they do not want to keep mute on important problems. Several permanent members have resorted to lobbying strategies to avoid this issue, either by threatening to exercise their charter-given right of veto or by keeping certain topics off the agenda entirely. Russian and Chinese negotiators have been using this tactic, known as the "Pocket Veto," a lot recently.

Although it is clear that the permanent members of the Council have used their veto authority more sparingly in recent years, as compared to the era preceding the end of the cold war, it is also clear that it is extremely uncommon to find an application of the veto power – explicitly or implicitly, through the pocket veto – that is not intended to protect particular national interests at the expense of allies. According to Okhovat, this is a major divergence from the planned use of the veto authority. To put it another way: The Security Council's veto authority gives the permanent five members unrestrained influence, requiring other council members to first examine their position on a specific topic and craft their recommendations in such a way as to placate the permanent members. According to Al Shraideh, the Security Council's inability to fulfil its purpose can be traced back to the threat and actual use of the veto power, and as a result, the UN system is fundamentally defective.

The establishment of the Islamic State, as well as the Security Council's condemnation of it as a danger to world peace and security, has pushed the importance of the veto power to the forefront once again. Permanent members' self-serving use of the veto power is not contrary to the UN charter's reasoning, but it is possible that the conditions that gave rise to the Islamic State were not anticipated by the Charter's drafters. In the present day, several reform proposals argue that the veto power is outdated and unnecessary. As a result of the veto power being exercised, a threat to world peace and security has been created in Syria, illustrating how the UN charter's drafters failed to anticipate difficulties of the 21st century. 72 years after the United Nations was established, it is becoming clear that the permanent members' veto power may pose a threat to the council's ability to carry out its purpose. Perhaps a real contemplation of change is all that is required to halt the downward spiral that the United Nations is now in.

Many politicians, researchers, and critics have expressed their displeasure with the UN as a result of the Security Council's work. Many people feel that the UNSC may benefit greatly from much-needed reforms to its operations. Thus, during the past 30 years, there has been an abundance of recommendations for reforming the Security Council and its operational ways. Restructuring ideas range from changing the composition of the Security Council's permanent and temporary members to reducing or eliminating the veto power altogether. According to some observers, there have been discussions about the veto power for years, and others argue that it has even been discussed since United Nations' creation. Regardless of its seeming illegitimacy. Arguments for and against the veto as well as mainstream reform suggestions will be evaluated in the next section in order to reach a judgement on the degree of change that is required and, following that, to choose which reform measure is the most appropriate in light of the UN Security Council's mandate of maintaining international peace and stability.

Veto power's existence is a first justification for its continuous usage. Due to the founding united nations member States being forced to provide the world's super powers this powerful instrument in exchange for their membership in an international organisation acting in the interests of peaceful governments across the world, the veto power exists today as it does. Due to the lack of engagement by the world's superpowers, the League of Nations was doomed from the start, and the United Nations' answer to this problem has been to ensure that the superpowers remain involved at all costs. According to this reasoning, the veto power is the most important guarantee of permanent member involvement, and as a result the danger of the member nations quitting the United Nations increases.

By Al Shraideh's estimation, it is unlikely that the permanent members will ever leave the United Nations, which has been hailed as a symbol of international legitimacy.

One of the arguments against the veto is that the United Nations employs "Soft Power" to achieve its aims and objectives. UNSC decisions are used to justify and delegitimize the activities of diverse parties across the world, according to this viewpoint.. Without the veto power, the UN would be able to approve more resolutions denouncing or applauding specific behaviour, which would help the organisation achieve its objectives. UNSC permanent members appear to have decreased their use of vetoes in recent decades, according to some writers, indicating a more responsible attitude toward the UNSC mandate and a less self-serving mindset among the permanent members. Al Shraideh, on the other hand, believes that this is a naive point of view since it ignores the pocket veto. Permanent UNSC members' legitimacy and integrity are preserved by the use of the pocket veto, which has shown to be just as beneficial as the traditional veto. Permanent members utilise the threat of veto power to influence the agenda of UNSC meetings by preventing nations from introducing matters damaging to the permanent member's interest or persuading states into endorsing an issue in exchange for a later use of the veto by the permanent member. Additionally, permanent members have had a history of subduing specific problems before eventually voting to veto the draught resolution.

According to pro-veto authors, removing or altering the Security Council or veto authority is unnecessary since any perceived failure of the Security Council in performing its duty may be remedied by other methods. In particular, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (GA 377). Because of a dispute between permanent members of the UN Security Council on problems of aggression, breach or danger of breach of peace and security, this resolution mandates an urgent General Assembly debate on any such topic. Also known as "the Uniting for Peace measure," this would be the remedy in case the UN Security Council (UNSC) failed to fulfil its mandate because it has exercised or threatened to wield its veto power. Most notably, this strategy was effective in the mess created when France and the United Kingdom refused to remove their troops from the Suez Canal because of their vetoes.

When General Assembly resolution 1991 was passed in 1965, it called for four additional non-permanent members to join the Security Council. This was the first and only time the Security Council has been reformed. As the United Nations' membership grew from 51 to 114, the Security Council's geographic representation was not appropriate, making it less effective in fulfilling its duty, according to the argument.

Abolition or restriction of the veto power is one of the many concerns addressed by Butler and Cox in their suggestions for UNSC reform. Another is the question of representation with in council. In 1992, the General Assembly passed resolution 47/62, which resurrected the Security Council reform movement. Members of the Security Council were given the opportunity to propose changes to the council's composition as a result of this decision. There were so many submissions that General Assembly resolution 48/26 created the Open-ended Working Group, which emphasised the growing number of UN member states that are developing nations, as well as the value that all UN member states place on the ideal of sovereign equality. Providing Member states with a forum to examine reform recommendations for the Security Council is the goal of the resolution The Razali plan was the first of several reform suggestions to be reviewed by the working group.

A major goal of the Razali plan was for both extending the Security Council's membership and modifying the Council's operational procedures to help it better accomplish its mandates. It is hoped that the Security Council would grow to 24 members by adding five permanent members and four non-permanent members. African, Asian, and Latin American countries would have to make up three out of the six extra permanent members; the other two permanent members would be industrialised countries. African, Asian, Eastern European and Latin American and Caribbean countries would be the non-permanent members. Permanent members were obligated to abstain from exercising their veto, and the veto did not apply to new permanent members under the Razali plan. Regular Security Council meetings and briefings to all UN members were also included in the proposal. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was to be more involved through advisory opinions. A two-thirds majority vote is required for any reform proposal to be approved by the General Assembly, which the Razali plan failed to achieve.

G4 is a reform proposal that appears to be in the centre of the High Level Panel Report's Model A plan and the Razali plan. When Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India joined forces to seek permanent membership on the Security Council, the G4 idea was born. The G4 plan addresses the Razali plan's concerns about increasing the credibility of the Model A plan by better geographically representing emerging states. By emphasising developing countries' unique understanding of "Security," Cox says the G4 plan aims to better represent and serve these countries' interests at the UN Security Council, which is able to better identify and deal with the threat or breaches of peace and security with the assistance of developing countries. Goals of the G4 plan may be achieved by adding 10 members to the UNSC. In all, there are six regular members and four alternate members. There would be two African nations, two Asian states, one Latin American and Caribbean state, one Western European state, and others. One country from each continent would make up the four non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. With frequent UNSC meetings and more ICJ advisory views, the G4 proposal would support the openness and enhanced working techniques indicated in Razali's approach. The G4 plan would not grant the permanent new members the authority to veto until a review of the plan after 15 years of operation.

Ezulwini Consensus expresses Africa's position in the Security Council reform debate through its reform proposal. "Freedom freedom from fear, freedom from fear, and liberty to live in dignity" are the pillars of the Security Council's mission, according to the strategy. Using the United Nations system, the Ezulwini Consensus plan attempts to alleviate the plan's recognised problem of exploitation of poor states by wealthy ones.

In the Ezulwini Consensus plan, there would be 26 members on the Security Council: two permanent and four non-permanent members from Africa, two permanent and one temporary members from Asia, one non-permanent member from Eastern Europe, and one permanent member from Latin America and the Caribbean. In Western Europe, there would be one permanent member. African governments would be appointed to the Security Council by the African Union and would maintain their veto power under the Ezulwini Consensus plan.

Twenty years ago, the first significant reform proposal of the contemporary era was put out. He believes that the failure of reform ideas is because they do not share the United Nations' ideals and purposes, but are instead centred on concerns about justice and regional representation. The S5 plan is the most workable of the aforementioned options because the permanent members cannot veto it.  A two-thirds vote is needed to pass the S5 plan's reforms. In spite of the S5 plan's increased accountability and legitimacy, the fundamental issue of veto power is not addressed. In comparison, the other major ideas for change are overly aggressive. A major increase in the number of Security Council members is advocated by the Ezulwini, G4, and Uniting for Consensus programmes. UNSC diversity cannot be guaranteed by increasing the number of members, even if the interests of geographical representation are adequately protected. To make matters worse, the beneficial outcome of a more inclusive council does not necessarily correspond to the objectives and logic of those who drafted the council's constitution.

Since the UNSC's creation, it has been plagued by criticism. Criticism of the veto power is at the core of this argument. In response to the growing energy and desire for change, a number of reform ideas have been put forth, all of which advocate limiting or abolishing the veto power. The United Nations' primary goal is to keep the world safe and peaceful. In order to accomplish this goal, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been given the mandate.   The veto right was included in the UN charter to guarantee that the goal was met. The drafters of the United Nations Charter, on the other hand, did not take into consideration the likelihood that the protection measure may have a detrimental effect on the aim. As a result, the UN charter's drafters neglected to consider the dangers that the veto power would pose to international peace and security. That is, in fact, the reality of our day. As long as there is a desire to execute reforms, no matter how many times they have been rejected, they will be done. The permanent members of the Security Council's veto authority have been a major source of dissatisfaction for many. Despite the fact that the reader has already recognised the importance of the veto power, he or she may still have a strong desire for change. This feeling is shared by the authors of the preceding solutions, who have provided their best suggestions for improving the situation. Some proposals, on the other hand, claim to counteract the self-serving attitude of the Security Council by adopting reform that would put their authors in positions of power in the Council. This is disturbing. Some UN member nations believe they would behave more for the good of other members of their organisation if they were given permanent Security Council seats. This is a myth. As previously mentioned, any suggestion to modify the number and makeup of the Security Council's member states in order to address complaints about a lack of geographical representation is shallow and fails to consider the objective of the Council's formation. As a result, there is little indication that diversity in the council will make it more successful. In reality, the contrary viewpoint has greater sway, as the existing Security Council is regarded ineffective because member nations operate in their own self-interest.

It is true that the United Nations has a function to play in the globe, but that role is one that is performed ineffectively. The United Nations Security Council has long been criticised for its ineffectiveness; its five permanent members each have a veto power that allows them to prevent anything from passing through the council. This produces a great deal of confusion, especially when the subject is sensitive, as when Russia vetoes any effort to assist Syria in reaching a peaceful resolution. The United Nations also faces difficulties since it is unable to intervene in disputes occurring all over the world. This is due to the fact that its Security Council prevents it from doing anything, and its members are extremely reticent to get involved and provide a hand. It was ineffective during the Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the deaths of over 800,000 people. This was due to the Security Council's refusal to send in additional peacekeepers, as well as the Security Council's refusal to allow the forces already on the ground to combat the killers unless it was in the course of protecting themselves. Given that the United Nations was established to prevent genocide, this is a significant loss of life. In addition to its passivity, its developed and major countries are woefully under-resourced when it comes to giving resources to assist resolve crises like these. The bulk of the participants are from underdeveloped nations. Finally, the United Nations suffers as a result of the divergent agendas and interests of its member countries.. Each and every member takes a decision depending on how it stands to gain from the outcome of the vote or discussion. The United Nations is unable to assist since its members have complete control over what it does, as well as the members are only interested in doing what helps them. United Nations struggles severely as a result of these distinct issues and difficulties. United Nations reform and improvement are possible, but they will need a global effort, and the main countries are not prepared to undergo such a transformation right now.

Conclusion

The United Nations' impact on the globe cannot be measured. Over 193 countries have joined the UN, and 70 peacekeeping operations have been deployed across the world. Humanitarian help has been provided to those in need, and we are presently enjoying the Long Peace. It is the goal of the United Nations to ensure that future generations will be able to live in peace and security. The United Nations is often criticised despite its efforts and accomplishments, with some even stating the entire attempt has been useless because of the UN's perceived shortcomings. The United Nations Security Council is the target of most of the critiques, since it is viewed as a veto-wielding body whose main goal is to protect the interests of the world's major countries. However, while it may appear scary at first, once we grasp the logic behind the systems that make such judgments feasible, we can get a far more comprehensive picture. One may even conclude that the veto power has become a tool used to thwart the Security Council's mandate by using it for self-serving motives at the expense of the interests of UN member states. According to Cox, the veto power was put in place as a safeguard for the Security Council's mission. Because the great powers are responsible for ensuring international peace and security, their interests take precedence over those of the rest of the UN's member states, as these powers shoulder the bulk of the burden. Without them, the mission would not be fulfilled.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council should have a greater share of the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. As a result, the veto power that is employed to protect the country's interests of the regular member wielding it is not as appropriate as Cox claims. The Islamic State has shown us that while the UN charter's drafters anticipated a number of potential complexities, they were unable to imagine the current situation in Syria. Using their veto authority, Russia and China prevented the Security Council from taking action in Syria, allowing the militant terrorist organisation Islamic State to take advantage of the void. The Islamic State today offers a unique danger to world peace and security, one for which the UN Security Council is not historically prepared. Even if the UN charter's framers anticipated the permanent five members utilising their veto power to protect their own interests, they did not anticipate the circumstance in which the exercise of that authority for self-indulgent reasons may result in a danger to world peace and security.

Indeed, the veto power has been condemned by some academics and politicians as an outmoded antique that cannot address the needs of the current world. Due to our failure to respond to reform requests, a new threat has emerged as a result of our underlying fault. Civilians' needs come first, as the UN Security Council becomes increasingly unpopular among UN member states when it exercises its veto authority in situations involving human rights breaches. For one thing, the Security Council's silence on human rights breaches shows that those who are victims of human rights violations are left alone and vulnerable, which makes them more vulnerable to radicalization and taking up violent actions, as seen in Syria with the Islamic State, which is now a danger to world peace and security. However, the veto power is a helpful weapon that, for the most part, protects the mission of the Security Council by fostering harmonious relations amongst the world's big powers. However, it is clear that the use of the veto power poses a danger to world peace and security, therefore we must stop and seek reforms that would address this issue.

After 72 years since the United Nations was founded, the world has certainly evolved. International peace and stability cannot be achieved in a vacuum, but must be maintained in the face of constantly changing dangers. The veto power of the permanent members of the United Nations is one of the threats to international peace and security that has emerged in the 21st century. Permanent members' interests are well-served by the veto power, while civilian populations' concerns are ignored in exchange for their involvement in UN matters. The permanent members of the UN Security Council lack the expertise to deal with today's complex problems, and as a result, new approaches are required to right the ship.

Reference

Heyns C, 'The United Nations Security Council And The Veto Power Of The Permanent Members' (Repository.up.ac.za, 2017)

<https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/65718/Rukambe_United_2018.pdf?sequence=1> accessed 23 April 2022

India Today, 'What Is Veto Power In UN?' (India Today, 2022)

<https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/what-is-veto-power-in-un-1923905-2022-03-12> accessed 23 April 2022

KRISHNANKUTTY P, 'What Is Veto, Who Can Exercise It And Why It’S Not Applicable In UN General Assembly' (2022)

<https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/what-is-veto-who-can-exercise-it-and-why-its-not-applicable-in-un-general-assembly/850661/> accessed 23 April 2022

Mahmood F, 'Power Versus The Sovereign Equality Of States: The Veto, The P-5 And United Nations Security Council Reforms' (Sam.gov.tr, 2013)

<https://sam.gov.tr/pdf/perceptions/Volume-XVIII/winter-2013/Fakiha_Mahmood.pdf> accessed 23 April 2022

Parker K, 'The United Nations Security Council A Review Of The Security Council And Their Ability To Uphold The Charter' (Academicworks.cuny.edu, 2011)

<https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=cc_etds_theses> accessed 23 April 2022

Polisci, 'The Security Council’S Sine Qua Non: The Veto Power' (Polisci.rutgers.edu, 2021)

<https://polisci.rutgers.edu/publications/occasional-paper-series/346-occasional-paper-8-florence-emmanuela-emmy-dallas/file> accessed 23 April 2022

Ryder H, Baisch A, and Eguegu O, 'Decolonizing The United Nations Means Abolishing The Permanent Five' (Foreign Policy, 2020) <https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/17/decolonizing-united-nations-means-abolish-permanent-five-security-council/> accessed 23 April 2022

Tandon T, 'What Is Veto Power In The UN? Which Countries Have It & How Many Times Has Veto Power Been Used?' (Jagranjosh.com, 2022)

<https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-veto-power-in-the-un-which-countries-have-it-how-many-times-it-has-been-used-1646813539-1> accessed 23 April 2022

The Japan Times, 'U.N. To Debate Move To Limit Veto Power Of Security Council Permanent Members' (The Japan Times, 2022)

<https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/19/world/politics-diplomacy-world/u-n-debate-security-council-veto/> accessed 23 April 2022

The Times of India, 'Unsc: Veto Power Of UNSC Permanent Members: Where India Stands | India News - Times Of India' (The Times of India, 2022)

<https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/veto-power-of-unsc-permanent-members-where-india-stands/articleshow/90933141.cms> accessed 23 April 2022

UNSC, 'Voting System | United Nations Security Council' (Un.org, 2022)

<https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system> accessed 23 April 2022

Weiss T, and Kuele G, 'The Veto: Problems And Prospects' (E-International Relations, 2014) <https://www.e-ir.info/2014/03/27/the-veto-problems-and-prospects/> accessed 23 April 2022