The United Nations Security Council is in desperate need of reform because of the current dysfunction which surrounds it. Any suggestion of reform could be idealistic. To not enlarge the Security Council is an option too. Over the years, proposals on the reform of the Security Council have included the enlargement of the Security Council, changes to the categories or proportions of membership of the Security Council, the addition of Regional Representatives and changes to the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Another option for veto reform is to abolish the veto over resolutions concerning genocide and other crimes against humanity. Various international relations perspectives, including Idealists, Liberals, Marxists and Realists, align with each of these proposals. The best hope for the future lies in the expansion of Security Council members and possibly some control over the exercise of veto power by Security Council members.
It may be argued that any suggestion for reformation of the United Nations Security Council is by definition idealistic. The charter of the United Nations way shaped by the major victors in the Second World War and, not surprisingly, was shipped in their national interests. Any resolution that would effectively reduce the power of the resulting five permanent members of the Security Council - “China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States” (United Nations Security Counsel, “Members of the United Nations Security Counsel.” Unknown.), often referred to as the “P5”, would likely be opposed by them since it would reduce their power. And it would be effectively opposed, since they have the power to veto any such resolution. Similarly, any resolution that could have the effect of increasing the powers of the P5 would be opposed by the General Assembly, although no realistic reformation suggestions involve changes of this nature. Reforming the UN Security Council is idealistic.
To remain the status quo and not enlarge the Security Council is a consideration. The current Security Council consists of the P5 plus ten non-permanent members (increased from six non-permanent members in 1965, the only successful reform of the Security Council to date). This could be considered a Marxist perspective, since the Marxist view is that politics and economics are affiliated with each other and that politics controls the production system, with the Security Council in this case being considered the production system. Further, the Marxist ideal is “a stateless and classless society”. (Oxford University Press. “Introduction to Politics” Brief Second Edition. Textbook. 2014.) Therefore, a Marxist might argue for no expansion of the Security Council since, by adding additional permanent seat holders to the P5 it would cause a larger production system. To not enlarge the Security Council is an option.
A real possibility is to enlarge the Security Council. Recent proposals for...