Assignment

Objective
The purpose of this summary is to critically examine the issue of Security Council Reform and the options for reform that are available to the international community. In the following, conclusions as to the desirability, feasibility, and likelihood of reform are reached.

A need for reform?
A similar question was asked in the years leading up to 1963, the international community said yes. The membership of the Security Council was subsequently increased from eleven to fifteen. Today, the membership of the Council remains at 15, despite a considerable increase in member nations and a concerted effort, on the part of the General Assembly, to reach consensus on reform. Any change will require the concurring votes of all the permanent members of the Security Council.

There are a few issues that make the consideration of reform such an important topic, the least of which are not equity in representation and legitimacy (i.e. accountability/transparency). The UN is faced with a number of options, the first of which is to change nothing at all. On the other hand, the Council may be reformed consequentially as well as substantially.

It is clear, from the deliberations of the General Assembly that something must change. The debate regarding what should change and how things might change is the more difficult question. Council membership can be increased, by amending Article 23 of the Charter, to better reflect the member states it is mandated to represent. New members could be designated �permanent� or �elected� status and choosing these members can be based on regional representation, financial contribution, or some other method agreed upon by the international community (e.g. a �formula based on population, economic power, strategic responsibilities�). Another option is to do away with permanent members all together or the elimination of the �veto power�, or both � these are the important substantial changes the Council faces.

Is reform worth it?
It is clear that the Security Council cannot remain the same and maintain its legitimacy. For its own sake it should be reformed. In the least, Council membership should be expanded in a way that is democratic and legitimate. Expanding membership based on financial contribution is a mistake and would de-legitimize the Council, for that would be in stark contrast to the principle of sovereign equality articulated in the Charter. In this respect, reform is a legitimate and desirable cause.

Given the fact that the Security Council and General Assembly are not faced with the challenge of having to choose from only one or two options, reform is a feasible endeavor. The international community has all of the options stated above, as well as those not yet stated, and all the permutations thereof, at its disposal. The circumstances surrounding earlier changes to the Council set an important precedent. They demonstrate that, given the proper climate, reform is possible.

In the final analysis, the responsibility of reform rests on the international community, but the five permanent members of the Security Council hold the power to reform. There is a high likelihood that some consequential changes will be adopted: increase in permanent or elected members, increased transparency, etc., but the chance that the P-5 will surrender permanent status or veto power is slim to nil.

Where do you find the answer?
Reform of the Security Council is a difficult endeavor, but not an impossible one. The closer nations stay to the spirit of the charter � the spirit of equal participation, consensus, and responsible stewardship for peace and security � the easier this task will be. Given the current state of affairs, the need to change is of utmost importance, but it will take an incredible level of selflessness on the part of some nations to make the most important, substantive changes. The �impossibility� of substantive reform is accentuated by the fact that not one, but five nations must demonstrate this selflessness together.

The answer, then, is in the pressure other nations -- the vast majority of nations -- can put on the P-5 to change.