Towards a reform of the UN Security Council

“Five to Rule them All”_ or, in Spanish, five to rule them all is the title of the book by David Bosco that addresses the history and dynamics of the United Nations Security Council. The title makes an explicit reference to the power that the five permanent members of the Security Council have to make decisions in matters of international peace and security, since by having the power of veto under article twenty-seven of the UN Charter they can allow or block decisions on basically any issue1, such as allowing economic sanctions or taking military action.

This reality, as well as other aspects related to the operation and practice of the body, have triggered numerous criticisms, since it is neither efficient nor legitimate that such important decisions depend on only five States when one hundred and ninety-three make up the United Nations. Furthermore, the fact that the Security Council has changed little since its creation is implausible, as international society and geopolitics have been transformed. Consequently, critics of the body's current structure and operation have called for changes in its representativeness, accountability, legitimacy, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, and impartiality (Paul and Nahory 2005).

Mexico, as a country with a multilateral vocation, has not been left behind, which is why it has assumed a relevant leadership in the reform proposals. Specifically, the Franco-Mexican Initiative for the restriction of the use of the veto and its participation in the group “United for Consensus” stand out. Taking both initiatives into account, this article aims to analyze the proposals promoted by Mexico to determine their relevance and viability in a polarized international context. Firstly, both initiatives will be presented, then their relevance will be analyzed and finally their feasibility will be examined.

The initiatives promoted by Mexico

The Franco-Mexican Initiative for the restriction of the use of the veto in case of mass atrocities seeks to restrict the veto in case of serious violations of Human Rights and International Law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The initiative began with a call from France in 2013, but due to Mexico's leadership on the issue, the French foreign minister invited Mexico to present the initiative together with France at the 69th session of the General Assembly. .

Specifically, the initiative is a political declaration that highlights that mass atrocities can constitute a threat to international peace and security and proposes a voluntary and collective agreement of the permanent members of the Security Council (P5) to refrain from use the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Additionally, France included in its proposal a mechanism for activating a code of conduct in which, at the request of fifty States, the Secretary General could determine the nature of the crime (Hernández 2017). Finally, it is important to stress that the initiative does not seek to reform the United Nations Charter, but rather focuses on the political will and self-restraint of the Permanent Members.

The second initiative promoted by Mexico is that of the group “Uniting for Consensus” or, Unidos por el Consenso, which seeks to increase the regional representativeness and legitimacy of the Council through an increase in its non-permanent members, thus moving from fifteen members to a total of twenty-six. The non-permanent seats would increase from ten to twenty-one and would be selected under the following proportional criteria: six States would be African; five Asians; four from Latin America and the Caribbean; three from Western Europe and other States; two from Eastern Europe and one from Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The seats could be long-term with the possibility of immediate re-election or semi-permanent.

Unlike the Franco-Mexican Initiative, the group does seek to modify the text of the United Nations Charter. In particular, articles 23, 27 and 109 of the Charter (United Nations 2005). Although the initiative has gained support, it has strong opposition from the G4, a group led by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan that proposes that they be given a permanent seat.

Relevance of initiatives

Both initiatives would contribute significantly to the maintenance of international peace and security because they would reduce deadlocks caused by the veto. On the one hand, the Franco-Mexican Initiative would increase the efficiency of the Security Council to resolve conflicts where war crimes and crimes against humanity are committed, as well as serious violations of human rights. To illustrate, in the conflict in Syria, for five years (2012-2017) eight draft resolutions related to the use of chemical weapons, the delivery of humanitarian assistance and human rights were vetoed by Russia or China (Hernández 2017). This situation makes it clear that the Franco-Mexican Initiative would make the maintenance of peace and security more efficient because if the permanent members agree not to use the veto in cases of this magnitude, paralysis would be avoided in the face of humanitarian and Human Rights crises. , thus achieving a more efficient and consistent operation with the mission of the Security Council.

Secondly, the United for Consensus proposal would prevent even slower action in the Security Council because, unlike the G4 or African Union initiative, it opposes more permanent members with veto power. . Increasing the permanent seats would further block the Council's action because there would be more States that could use their veto or threaten to use it when the draft resolutions affected their national interest. Therefore, what is proposed by the group would contribute to peace and security by avoiding future impasses.

Likewise, this proposal is relevant because it will effectively represent the members of the United Nations, which would contribute to the legitimacy of the body, since the current composition of the Council shows little awareness of underrepresented points of view in regions. For example, approximately 60% of the body's resolutions are linked to Africa, but the region is highly underrepresented, leading to a lack of legitimacy (Lattilla 2019). Therefore, increasing the membership would make the operation of the Council more authentic.

Feasibility review of proposals

Although both proposals are relevant to improving the effectiveness of the Security Council, it is difficult for them to be accepted by the opposing interests of the P5 and the fragmentation of the reformists. Starting with the issue of the opposing interests of the P5, the Franco-Mexican Initiative does not align with the interests of the United States, China and Russia, since their national interests and the preservation of their power is a priority. So they would hardly give up the veto in cases of mass atrocity if they do not see gains from a change in their conduct. In addition, the political cost of not protecting human rights does not seem to affect the mentioned States, since in July 2020 China and Russia again vetoed resolutions on human rights and humanitarian assistance in Syria (United Nations 2021).

The United for Consensus proposal does not seem to be of interest to the P5 either, since the permanent members have publicly demonstrated their support for the G4 proposals. For example, all have supported India's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council, and China and Russia have reiterated their support for Brazil's aspiration to gain a more relevant role in the UN (Rodrigues, Mazui, and Barbiéri 2019). Another aspect that hinders the feasibility of the United for Consensus proposal is that it competes with other initiatives such as the G4 and the African Union. Therefore, the fragmentation of the reformists means that the proposals are not strong enough to be approved, since to reform the charter both the approval of the permanent members of the Security Council and the vote of two thirds of the members are required. Member States of the General Assembly.

Now, although there are difficulties for its instrumentalization, the initiatives also have elements that make them feasible. The first, in the case of the Franco-Mexican Initiative, is that it comes from a permanent member; therefore, the convening power is high. In addition, the declaration has been signed by more than 100 states and is on its way to be signed by two-thirds of the United Nations member states, which could increase the level of political pressure for countries like Russia and China. Actually, if they have more government support, the unwilling States could begin to transform their position to consolidate their leadership in today's international society. Likewise, this proposal is widely viable because the French minister stressed that the initiative can leave "safe the prerogative of the veto in cases in which their interests are at stake" (Hernández 2017, 59). While that acknowledgment could make the initiative misleading, it's part of a piecemeal effort that could draw the attention of the P5.

Regarding Uniting for Consensus, it is a viable initiative because it has the support of different countries. Likewise, it is feasible because the only reform to the UN Charter that has been made in relation to the Security Council was on the increase of non-permanent members after the decolonization processes in 1963. Therefore, the precedent of a successful reform of the same nature. However, it should be reiterated that the biggest challenge facing the initiative is that the P5 has shown its support for the G4 proposals, since even though the Uniting for Consensus initiative had a two-thirds vote, the P5's support for the G4 would block the initiative.

So, what should be prioritized to advance both initiatives? The countries that lead the United for Consensus group and the Franco-Mexican Initiative must concentrate their efforts on obtaining the support of two thirds of UN member states in order to have sufficient legitimacy and strength to propose the reforms. Subsequently, they should generate negotiation strategies to win the support of the P5, clarifying the gains they would obtain. For example, they could argue that granting other countries the power of veto could diminish the influence of the P5 and that not adopting the Franco-Mexican initiative would have very high political costs that make it difficult to consolidate the leadership of the powers today. Although the main reason to seek a reform is to increase the protection of Human Rights and revitalize the operations of the body, the negotiation strategies must convince the P5.

In conclusion, the reform of the UN Security Council is elementary and Mexico has shown leadership by promoting two highly relevant proposals to increase the effectiveness of the body in its mission of maintaining peace and security at the international level. Both proposals are relevant, but face difficulties for their approval such as the fragmentation of the reformers and the opposing interests of the P5. However, they also have elements that make them feasible and if the negotiation strategies with the P5 are strengthened and the number of States that support the initiatives increases, it would not be difficult to think that in the not so distant future the long-awaited , necessary and demanded reform of the Security Council of the United Nations.