***
The 17 December 1963 amendments concern the article 23, 27 and 61 and came into force on 31 August 1965. The 20 December 1965 amendment on the article 109 came into force on 12 June 1968. At last, the article 61 was modified a second time on 20 December 1971, and this amendment came into force on 21August 1965.
These numerous dates should not confuse the observer: only five articles have been modified and the object of these amendments can be easily summarized: they enlarge the membership of the two most important organs of the UN. More precisely, the new article 23 enlarges the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen. The amendment of the article 27 is a repercussion: decisions for procedural matters at the Security Council shall be made for an affirmative vote of nine members (formerly seven). Another repercussion resides in the article 109: a General Conference of Member States for the purpose of reviewing the Charter may be held by a date and a place to be fixed by a vote of two third of the General Assembly and a vote of nine members (formerly seven) of the Security council. At last, the article 61 enlarges the membership of the Economic and Social Council from 18 to 27 in 1965 and from twenty-seven to fifty-four in 1973.
Why were these amendments proposed?As for the Security Council, these amendments were a direct response to Asian, African, and Eastern Europe members who demanded a greater representation in this powerful organ. Now Asia and Africa has five seats in the Security Council. As for the Economic and Social Council, it was a more global response to the Third World Bloc�s will of a greater voice in determining economic and social policy. Therefore these amendments reflect the will of the powerful countries (i.e. countries which have already a satisfying representation) to respond to the claims of the under-represented countries.
Does the will to respond to these claims means a real will to balance the powers? We could argue that it is above all a symbolic action. First, because the important question of the five permanent members is put aside. This issue is yet really important since the power of a veto and a permanent seat at the Security Council stays incomparable. As an example, no matter how many non-permanent members there are, a veto will still have the power to block any decisions. The second argument lies in the fact that the Economic Council has no real power since he only has the power to recommend. Nevertheless, these changes have created a breach. And this breach gives some countries the opportunity to talk, to be heard, and to be more closely involved in this powerful institution that is the Security Council. The will of a greater participation in the Economic and Social Council results from the same awareness that it is truly useful to have a seat in any of the great forums that constitute the UN.
***
In conclusion, these amendments reflect the pressure put by the Third World bloc in the 70�s in order to have a greater representation. They also constitue an acknoledgement that the situation was unjust. It is a symbolic action that does not really affect the power of the powerful countries, nevertheless it has created a useful room for under-represented countries. Having saying that, it is important to note that the organization has responded more to the claim of these countries than to the real structural inequality that was denounced. The problem is therefore still unresolved. That fact enables us to foresee that new amendments tackling that subject are necessary and will be requested in a more and more pressing way.