Research Paper 2016.docx

27

2

Proposed Research Paper Title: United Nations Security Council reform: An Assessment

Researcher: Dr. Simon Namwandi INDONGO



Area of specialization: International Diplomacy



Contact Details: +264 81 240 5721


E-mail: [email protected]



Previous Qualifications: Doctor of Philosophy (International Relations), Master of Philosophy (Sustainable Development and Planning Management), Honours Bachelor of Arts (International Politics), and Bachelor of Arts (Political Studies, Sociology and Psychology)























Abstract
The reform of the Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been a contentious issue since 1963. Whilst theoretically, some member states agree on the need to transform the structure of the most powerful body of the world organization, so far there has been no consensus about the modalities and timeframe of that reform. The need for reform is necessitated by fundamental and pertinent reasons, namely the Council's inefficiency and ineffectiveness, legitimacy, mismanagement, and lack of equitable regional distribution and representation.

This paper discusses and analyses the attempts at the United Nations Security Council reform with special focus on regional proposals and negotiations. None of the proposals so far has obtained the necessary support for approval by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and serious disagreements continue to exist.
All United Nations members recognize the need to make the UNSC more representative of the realities of the modern world, and that this means to expand the Council to offer participation to more members, and to neutralize the use of veto right by five permanent members (P-5), but continue to disagree on how to do it. It is evident that no reforms to the UNSC have yet been agreed upon or implemented since 2005.

Introduction and background

In this study, the discussions, proposals, and debates on the reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are analysed and assessed in order to evaluate viable proposal for effective and genuine reform. The reform of the United Nations (UN) and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is essentially for the following reasons: a) a multitude of criticisms about the Council's inefficiency, legitimacy and representatively, b) there has been criticized for being a "sprawling and highly bureaucratized structure which is excessively costly, mismanaged and ineffectiveness, c) most UN members agree that the present structure of the UNSC is obsolete, d) control of decision-making within the UN has become increasingly skewed towards Western powers and there was thus a clear need to promote and encourage a unified international approach to continental interests, e) within an inequitable international system, a more balanced approach to international security is thus considered necessary as highlighted by the High Level Panel, f) local solutions to peacekeeping and peace building were preferable but there nevertheless remains a need to strengthen the role of the UN in keeping peace and promoting economic development in the regions.

The UNSC was established in 1946, it currently has fifteen members. The People's Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America are the five permanent members of this body and the holders of veto power. It is interesting to note that except for the People's Republic of China (which was replaced the Republic of China in 1971) and the Russian Federation (which was replaced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991) the current Permanent Five (P-5) are the main victors of the World War II. The other ten members of the Security Council are non- permanent. They are elected by the General Assembly through majority vote to take on a two-year terms. In order to ensure better regional representation, non-permanent members are elected from different regional groups. The African Group has three representatives, the Western European and other Group (WEOG), the Latin America and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), and the Asian Group each has two representatives and the Eastern Europe Group has one representative. Also one member of the Council should be an Arab country, which can be chosen from the Asian or African Groups.

The structure of the UNSC, set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter as amended in 1965, consists of five permanent members and ten elected members which serve non- renewable two-year periods, starting on 1st January, with five members being replaced each year.

In 1963, the UNGA, with the approval of the UNSC as required by Article 27 of the UN Charter, decided that the non-permanent members should be allocated geographically, with five seats reserved for the African and Asian states, one for the Eastern European and other seats for Latin America and the Caribbean and another two for Western European and other states (Walker 2007:20). There are no specific seats allocated to the Arab nations, whose representation oscillates between the African and Asian regions according to an understanding among the parties.

The study also highlights on some theories of International Relations as well as shed more light on few transformations and changes within some of the international organisations.

Problem Statement

In principle, the restructuring of the UNSC must include streamlined working methods and a broader, more representative membership that reflected geopolitical realities and prepared the body to fulfil its mandate of maintaining global peace and security. A common view envisioned a democratic, representative, accountable and effective council, with many proponents supporting an expanded membership that included seats for African States and for the Arab States. The research question for this study will be looking at the relevance of the UNSC structure to the 21st century. Reform efforts should be aimed at making the body more just and more consistent to contemporary realities in a manner that would enable it to respond more quickly to crises. Reform should also include improved working methods, including restricting the use of the veto power, as well as ultimately being abolished. I would argue that the issue of restructuring should be addressed in a comprehensive, transparent and balanced manner. The Council's open-ended conception and the inequalities built into its founding rules for voting and decision-making mean it has often been used as a tool for promoting security on a selective basis, particularly in support of the interests of the P-5. It is perceived that these countries often initiate and shape, or block, peacekeeping missions to further their strategic interests and to reinforce their historical spheres of influence. The process should reflect views of all States. Calls for the reform of the Security Council prompt three key research questions: 1) Would the UNSC expansion of 1963 reflect the political realities of current 193 members States? 2) Is there equitable geographic distribution and representation in the Security Council? 3) Is the right to veto by Permanent Members still relevant? In light of the above, the aim of this study is to analyse and assess the interim or intermediary approach to reach agreement or at least reduce disagreement, on the so-called five main issues: a) Size of an enlarged UNSC, b) Categories of Membership, c) Question of Regional Representation, d) Question of the Veto, e) Working Methods of the UNSC and its relationship between the UNSC and UNGA.
The African group is a force to reckon because this is group constitutes about thirty percent of the membership of the UNGA and its cooperation is badly needed to obtain the required two-thirds of the UNGA votes for any country to become a new member of the UNSC.


Objectives/Hypothesis

The primary objective of this paper is to assess whether there is a coherent and realistic strategy and approach to reform of the UNSC. In addition, the researcher assess whether there is a correlation between effective implementation of resolutions and equal representation at the Council, as well as members' interest. This study is about these positions, debates, struggles and negotiations, as the United Nations membership attempts to move forward with United Nation Security Council reform. This article describe, summarize and analyse these important debates, and assess whether the intergovernmental negotiations that have had any positive impact on moving the UN membership closer to a potential agreement. It further proposes other platforms for meetings a way to improve engagement with the general United Nations membership and other to promote transparency and help bridge differences between Member States and the Council.

It further looks at the on-going Security Council reform debates and includes many reform proposals, including, the Common African Position on the proposed reform of the United Nations, Crucial Documents such as Report of the High Level Panel on Threats, challenges and change December 2, 2004, the Razali Paper on Security Council Reform (20 March 1997), Canadian Roundtable on Security Council Reform (September 1995), GPF Paper by James Paul on Security Council Reform (February 1995), NGO Conference " Reforming the Security Council" ( May 1994), G-4, S-5, and General Assembly Working Group on Security Council Reform.


Key concepts

Veto power- This is a special voting power by the Permanent member states at the Security Council. It is also known as the "right to veto". Article 27 of the UN Charter states that each member of the Security Council shall have one vote (Okhovat 2012:10-15). The five nations that hold veto power on the UNSC are The United States of America, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. These Permanent-5 members have the power of the veto, which means they can stop a draft resolution from becoming a resolution.

Anarchy- It refers to a term used to describe a situation in which a central government is absent. The term is used to convey the degree to which a semblance of order is possible on the basis of shared understanding and compliance with norms and procedures, even in the absence of a central government.
Anarchy is defined primarily in terms of the absence of central authority, not necessary in terms of war, (Thompson et al, 1999:702). Thompson et al (1999:702) argue that the realist view does imply that international politics is inherently competitive and conflictual, that survival is the primary goal of states, and that relative power is of central importance. He further contends that nevertheless, given the absence of central authority, the key realist ordering principle is self-help- States must take care of themselves.

Preventive diplomacy, it refers to attempts to bring hostile parties to agreement before conflict leads to war.

Peacekeeping, it involves deployment of armed UN personnel to help defuse a conflict. It differs from peace-making in one crucial way, namely, the peacekeepers arrive when a cease-fire has been agreed to, with the purpose of seeing that it is honoured.

International Organisations (IOs)- International Organization as defined by Archer C. (1992) is an organization that represents a form of institution that refers to a formal system of rules and objectives, a rationalized administrative instrument and which has a formal technical material organisation, constructions, local chapters, physical equipment, machines, emblems, letterhead stationery, an administrative hierarchy and so forth, (Thompson et al, 1999:02). "The most expansive definitions of international organisation are framed in terms of broad ordering principles of international system. The focus here is on realist conception of self-help in anarchy and the English School view of international society", Self –help in anarchy, the traditional realist view centres on sovereign territorial states in as state of anarchy, with Thomas Hobbes as the relevant intellectual hero.
International Organisations serve as crucial forces of coordination and cooperation on many political, economic, social, military and cultural issues. International Organisations are important participants of the international system (Bowles et al, 1993:6). " The growth of transnational, and International Organisations was greatly facilitated by the rise of an increasing number of tenuous networks of nation-states in political, economic, and financial affairs in early modern Europe. Bowles et al (1993: 6) admit that in general, International Organisations are based on multilateral treaties between at least two sovereign nation-states. The formation of an initially fairly loose bond among the participants is cemented by the development of more or less stringent institutional structures and organs to pursue certain more or less clearly defined common aims in the international arena. According to Bowles et al (1993), International Organisations can either have centralized structure due to the limited number of regional state actors available. Whilst many IOs are single-issue organisations, others focus their attention on a multitude of issues. Bowles et al (1993:6-7) indicates that IOs membership can either open to new members or consist of a closed system. On occasion IOs are created for certain duration as specified in their respective charters, but more often than not no time restriction is applied.

Multilateralism- multilateralism is defined as the practice promoting trade among several countries through agreements concerning quality and price of commodity.
The prospects for contemporary forms of multilateralism can be manifested in a range of issue areas, namely:
1) The relationship between the distribution of power at the international level in all its dimensions, hard and soft, and the nature of multilateralism is fundamental, 2) The challenges to multilateralism is in part the challenge to the State. Security challenges, for example, are no longer mainly those of inter-state war, trade, and economic relations are increasingly non-state and present mounting regulatory challenges, civil society and other networks and communities are significant generators and enforcers of global norms, and in many cases are directly challenging and even out performing multilateral institutions on normative grounds; 3) In the decision-making procedures and their representation, many international organizations do not meet contemporary standards and expectations of legitimacy based upon accountability and democracy. International organizations emerged from the need to regulate and give predictability to a narrow range of inter-state relations; 4) Other challenges to multilateralism stem from more obvious problems of multilateral performance.


Limitations and Delimitation

This paper is a research-based only. Lack of available and reliable data will hamper the researcher's analysis. Another limitation of this was the lack of prior research studies on the topic. Another obstacle that the study may encounter was time management.

The paper concentrates on the debates, proposals and negotiations on the reform of the UNSC. These deliberations and discussions include UN reports, proposals put forward by G-4, African Union, and Uniting for Consensus, on membership, expansion, regional representation, veto power and voting rights

Research rationale

The reform of the Security Council of the United Nations (UNSC) has engaged the energies of the world's most distinguished diplomats and politicians practically since the time that the world organization was created. As the organisation's membership increased from the original 51 members to 193 in the present, more voices have been heard demanding a Council that is more representative of its larger membership. Also, with the exception of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council or P-5, which have the privileges of using their veto to block any potential resolution, basically all the rest of the UN membership would like to eliminate the veto to make the organization more democratic.

The United Nations has had its critics from the beginning, though the voices have become more clamorous in recent years, attacking the bureaucracy, corruption and waste, and a general perceived lack of capability to deal with conflicts, which erupted since the end of the Cold War. Political analysts argued that failure to effectively address these challenges undermines its standing. In light of the above, the discussion produces a set of proposals on institutional change, and also the strengthening of the normative framework of the United Nations.

As alluded earlier that, delegates at the 68th UNGA stressed that the process of overhauling the Security Council must include streamlined working methods and a broader, a more representative membership that reflected geopolitical realities and prepared the body to fulfill its mandate of maintaining global peace and security. During the UNGA in 2013, the emphasis was on the need to reinvigorate and advance the question of reform of the UNSC. It is imperative to note that delegates focused on categories of membership, the veto question, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council, working methods and the relationship between the Assembly and the Council. Reform efforts should be aimed at making the body more just and more consistent to contemporary realities in a manner that would enable it to respond more quickly to crises.

It is understandable that as soon as the issue of expanding the UNSC was put to discussion, Members States formed alliances to advance their national and regional objectives, which in many instances, but not always, meant to deprive a neighbour from occupying a seat at the Council. In this manner, three relatively stable main groups have been formed, which are the G-4, the Uniting for Consensus (UfC), the Small Five Group (G-5), and the African Union.

Literature review

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the most powerful body of the world organization. It is charged with the great responsibility of "the maintenance of international peace and security" (UN Security Council Reform 2008:1). According to the UN Charter, the UNSC is required to investigate any situation threatening international peace; recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute; call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; enforce decisions militarily, or by any means necessary to avoid conflict and maintain focus on cooperation (UNSC Expansion 2008:1).

There are a number of valid and convincing reasons for expanding the Security Council. First of all, expansion of membership of UNO. The UN now counts 193 members, which is a situation quite different from the situation at its foundation time and from that existing in 1963 when the Council was expanded from 11 to 15 members. There are several reasons for restructuring the Security Council. The main ones, which have often been pointed out, are its:
Lack of democracy;
Insufficient geographic representation,
Lack of legitimacy for ensuring global governance; and
Poor representation of the international community if compared with its increased powers.
In 1992, the General assembly decided that all UN members should be invited to submit written proposal on future membership in the Security Council. The seventy-five replies served as a background for a discussion of this tricky question in 1993. It is evident that everyone agrees that Security Council membership should somehow be enlarged so as to correspond better to the present-day world. In 1993, preliminary debate yielded many proposals, both as to membership and procedure. Chief among them were the following:
The purpose of reforms:
To ensure: legitimacy, moral authority, trust and faith, credibility, impartiality, responsiveness, and democracy;
To maintain and reinforce: cohesion, efficiency, manageability, decisiveness
Criteria for membership:
Equitable geographical representation (large and small), population, size of economy, support for peacekeeping, funding UN regular budget, participation in UN political and economic activities, strategic location, diplomatic skill.
Procedures:
Veto- abolishes it now or phase it out, or qualify it,
Proceedings should be open and transparent, regular, structured,
Relative to General assembly, Security Council to be accountable, stronger GA guidance,
Relative to Peacekeeping contributors (75 nations) keep them in the picture with information and consultation, (Newcombe et al 1995:58).
As a result, the General assembly set up an Open-Ended Working Group to develop recommendations both on membership and procedures in the future Security Council. The whole idea was for these recommendations to be considered by the Assembly by 1994, and perhaps a decision could have been reached in 1995.
It is important to note that before that Working Group, several international commissions made proposals for improvement in the international system. The two Brandt Commission Reports (Independent Commission on International Development Issues, 1980 and 1983), the Report of the South Commission (1990), chaired by Julius Nyerere, have accentuated the need to reduce inequality between rich and poor countries, the Palme Commission (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, 1982) coined the concept of "common security" and pointed out that true security can be achieved only through cooperation.

At its founding, the UN had 51 members and the Security Council (SC) consisted of the same five countries that serve as permanent members today, plus six non-permanent members. Since then, there was no complete restructuring of the UN. Besides that it is worth to mention that the number of non-permanent members was increased to 10 in 1963, although the overall membership of the UN has nearly quadrupled to 193. There is a general agreement that the Security Council should be enlarged, and that it is a time to utilize this "momentum for reform". It is an opportune time for reform of the UN, however, there is no convergences of views on the modality of the reform package. In September 2008, members States agreed to revive the fifteen-year-old deadlocked discussions on Security Council reform from the open-ended-Working Group to the Intergovernmental Negotiations in an informal plenary of the General Assembly. The aim of the shift of negotiations'' framework was to bring the process closer to a form that could potentially lead to a decision on the reform, even without consensus. It is surprisingly to note that this change was fiercely opposed by the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group that campaigned for the application of consensus as the decision-making procedure during intergovernmental negotiations. Consequently, the issue concerning rules of procedure became a major divisive topic among UN members.
In February 2009, a work plan was presented by the then Chairman of Negotiations, and the President of the General Assembly (GA). It identifies five key issues to be discussed, namely: categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged Council and working methods of the Security Council, the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. It was however, decided not to apply the GA's rules to intergovernmental negotiations. By not applying the GA's rules to these negotiations, was complicated because, Member States were not allowed to ask for a vote until the end of the negotiations.
Despite this compromise, negotiations suffered another setback on May 2009, when the then Permanent representative of Afghanistan to the UN and chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations presented his Overview, in which he laid out the options put forth in the meetings held since February for each of the five topics. On that occasion many members loudly voiced their opposition to his document. These members, namely those belonging to the UFC group, already had reservations about the idea of a "composite paper" and therefore refused to recognize it as the basic reference for further negotiations.
Furthermore, five key issues were highlighted in the Overview produced by the chairperson: categories of membership, regional representation, relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, veto and working methods. However, it cannot be denied that the first of these issues represents the real area of contention between the two main factions: G4 and Uniting for Consensus. Whereas the Small-Five Group attaches more importance to a reform that will create a Security Council that is more transparent, accountable and accessible for non-members. To this end, it was contended that the current permanent members are trying to keep a low-profile, due to their preferences for maintaining the status quo or for a transition reform. The general consensus is that every Member State recognizes the need for a more representative and accountable Security Council, and each member considers the current situation as an anachronistic legacy of the post-World War II order, but different groups have different ideas of how the reformed Council should represent the new order.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali published an Agenda For Peace, this report, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations. The report, which was commissioned by the Security Council at its historic summit meeting of 31 January 1992, dealt with three key aspects of the role of the United Nations in the context of collective security. These were preventive Diplomacy, Peace-making and Peacekeeping. Newcombe et al (1995: 13) argue that "the reform of the decision making process of the organisation needs work. There are many ideas circulating about the membership, structure, powers and voting at the Security Council. The General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the other UN bodies and the agencies all need to be examined with a view to improving their operations and effectiveness". The term Agenda For Peace referred only to those matter that related directly to the peace-keeping and peace-making function as supervised by the Security Council. The general feeling was to broaden the concept of the Agenda For Peace terminology to include the whole issue of restructuring the United nations system. Therefore, reform is needed to deal with the chronic lack of coordination in the system. According to Newcombe et al (1995), this would mean far more accountability of the agencies to some central authority residing within the office of the Secretary-General. To this end, one major area that clearly needs reform is the office of the Secretary General, because it would seem that not enough attention has been paid to the role the Secretary General is expected to play on the world scene. To further this argument, Newcombe et at (1995) stated that the office is the embodiment of the hopes of mankind for a peaceful and prosperous world. Unfortunately, the reality is that the office has no real independent authority and is severely circumscribed by budgetary and political considerations. In the new era this reality will have to change.

It is worth to note that when the issue of expanding the UNSC was put to discussion, Member States formed alliances to advance their national objectives, which in many instances, but not always, meant to deprive a neighbour from occupying a seat at the Council. In this manner, three relatively stable main groups have been formed, which are the G-4, the African Union, the Uniting For Consensus ( UfC) , and the Italian position.

In this research paper, I track the progress of negotiations around Security Council reform both before and after the World Summit in 2005. It is evident that no reforms to the Council have yet been agreed upon or implemented.

The Razali Plan

The Razali Plan was formed under the guidance of a former President of the General Assembly, Mr. Razali Ismael, Malaysian Ambassador to the UN. An Open-Ended Working Group was established. This group did produce in 1997 some concrete and workable proposals for Security Council reform that came to be known as the Razali Plan. The Razali Plan envisaged five new permanent seats on the Council, two for industrialised countries and one for each of the main Third World regions of Africa, Asia and Latina America, including the Caribbean.
The Razali Plan also laid down that these three regions would be allocated an additional non-permanent seat, as would Eastern Europe, while the Western European group would keep its current two non-permanent seats. Gupta 2006:05) pointed out "with the nine new seats, this would make for a 24-member Security Council. New permanent members would not initially have the power of veto. On the issue of procedure the Plan proposed that a vote should be taken first on the creation of new seats and the new permanent members should be elected subsequently".

The High-Level Panel (HLP) on threats, challenges and challenges, and 'IN LARGER FREEDOM'

The High Level Panel adopted two central themes in proposing alterations to the composition and categories of membership of the Security Council. I would agree with the view that the principal aim of any reform should be to enhance the Council's capacity and willingness to act in the face of threats. Zifcak (2009:17) argues that, "a newly constituted Council should aim therefore, to maximize the involvement of those states that contribute most to the UN, financially, militarily and diplomatically".

It is also interesting to note that the UN report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change put forth some criteria for the new members of the UNSC such as new members must have contributed "most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically", particularly through contributions to the United Nations assessed budgets and through participation in mandated peace operations. The other conditions identified in the report are that new members should "represent the broader UN membership, increase the democratic and accountable nature of the Security Council, and should not impair its effectiveness.

In considering permanent or long-term membership of the Council, the Panel recommended that the General Assembly should give preference to states that ranked as one of the top three financial or troop contributors from their respective regions. To me this is more bias and will favour few states only. To become more representative, the panel argued the Council should be comprised of states reflective of the UN's broader membership. There was a need, in particular, to ensure that counties from the developing world were properly represented. The Panel, thus, advanced tow models for the enlargement of the Security Council.

The first (Model A) proposed that six new permanent seats should be created, but no new permanent member should have the veto. In addition, three new non-permanent seats, each of two-year' duration, should be added. In this regard, the new permanent and non-permanent seats, when added to the existing complement, would produce a Council membership having six seats allocated equally among four major regions: Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, Europe and the Latin Americas.

The second (Model B) would not create any new permanent members. Instead, a new category of eight-four-year renewable seats would be established together with one new seat having the usual two-year term. Again, these additions would produce a membership that was evenly divided between the four designated regions.

Three others put forward in the form of draft resolutions by newly formed and competing member-state coalitions have displaced the Panel's models. The first option, advanced by the G-4 (Germany, India, Brazil and Japan) and an array of smaller countries, promote a variant of Model A.

The HLP report was followed by the Secretary General's report "In Larger Freedom, Towards Development, Security and Human rights for all". In this his report, Mr. Kofi Annan, the then Secretary General, proposed that the UN should be structured around the work of three councils: the Security Council, ECOSOC and the newly created Human Rights Council.

The G-4 Proposal

The Group of Four (G4) is composed of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, and has called for new national permanent seats, which would be assigned by choosing among the economically strongest and most influential countries of the international community.

The G-4 calls for six new permanent seats, one for each of the G-4 countries (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan), and two for Africa, as well as four new non-permanent seats (Security Council Reform 2009:7).

The staunchest supporter of the G4 is by far India. India points out the need to for a "genuine reform" and rejects any attempt at making merely cosmetic changes to the Security Council. According to India, such a "genuine reform" can only be carried out by an expansion of the number of both permanent and non- permanent members. India argues that the core issue is that the new Security Council must reflect contemporary realities, and address the under-representation of developing countries. I am in agreement with Indian's view, in the sense that there is urgent need for new national permanent members, especially for countries that represent Asia and Latin America. India has consistently been among the largest contributors of UN peacekeepers, contributing about 163, 000 personnel in 43 UN Missions. It is important to note that there is a normative rationale for such contributions to the UN. India pledged its commitment to the principles of peace and justice as enshrined in the United Nations Charter even before its independence. This international commitment is included in India's Constitution promulgated on 26 November 1949. According to India, if the G4 proposal was adopted, the national permanent members would, in line with article 27 of the UN Charter, automatically enjoy veto rights.

The African Union variation of a "Real Reform"

The UNSC is at the top of the African Union (AU) agenda because of its crucial role in peace and security on the African continent. The African appeal for a real reform includes an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories of seats, which would increase the number of Security Council members to 26, reserving two permanent seats and five non-permanent ones for African countries, without deviating from the 2005 Sirte Declaration. Leaders of African Union believe that this solution is the only suitable one to overcome the current situation of underrepresentation of developing countries among the non-permanent members and the non-existence of representation of African and Latin America among the permanent seats. This request contrasts with the G4 proposal of allocating just one more non-permanent seat to African countries. The African Union (AU) proposed a somewhat similar model focusing unsurprisingly on the promotion of its members' interests. The rationale behind that proposal was the need 'to ensure Africa's effective representation in the Security Council like other regions of the World', six new permanent seats would be created in the same configuration as suggested by the G-4. Five additional non-permanent seats would be created, giving Africa two additional places in this category and the other non-European regions one each. It is worth to mention that Africa insisted that new permanent members would have the same prerogatives and privileges as the existing members.

I would agree with African Union, because of the issues of peace and security, which are highly relevance to Africa. With respect to the right of veto, the African position is differ from the G4's 2005 proposal. As it stands, the African countries do not intend to surrender the attribution of this right in their proposed additional seats. And also, this is a defining moment call for courage for African countries to stand up for what rightful theirs. There are political obstacles linked to the identification of the two African countries candidate for the permanent seats. Although, the Africans had another problem in that they could not agree among themselves about which nations would take their two new permanent positions. I guess this is a non-issue to African countries, as a Committee of ten Heads of State and Government on the reform of the United Nations Security Council is created to resolve this matter. The Committee of Ten (10) underscores the overriding need to ensure that the interests of Africa continues to be maintained and safeguarded at all times in the on-going intergovernmental negotiations. The Committee further reiterates its call for Africa to continue to speak with one voice and cohesively on all issues relating to the UNSC reform and related matters.

The African Union reserves for itself the right to select the countries within its framework, although South Africa has stressed that the seats will not serve as "regional seats". The continental position was adopted at the meeting of the Executive Council of the African Union held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on 7-8 March 2005 and is also known as the Ezulwini Consensus. According to the Ezulwini Consensus, which was adopted by the AU Foreign Ministers as Africa's common position on UN reform, the AU has agreed "Africa's goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, with special interest in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ in matters relating to international peace and security.
In principle, the Africa Group calls for six new permanent members, two seats for Africa, two seats for Asia, one for Latin America and the Caribbean, and one for Western Europe, as well as five non-permanent seats of which tow should be reserved for Africa (Security Council Reform 2009:3). This group requests that new permanent members should have the same privileges as the current permanent members, including the right of veto.

The proposal of the African Group, the largest group with 53 nations, advocates a greater representation of their continent in the UNSC. They argue that Africa is the only continent that is without a permanent seat in the UNSC. During the discussion on the reform of the UNSC, three African countries, such as Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria are the likely contenders for Africa's permanent seats. It is crucial to note that other African nations, such as Senegal, Algeria, and Kenya, also have expressed an interest in being considered for the permanent seats.

Furthermore, the African common position emphases the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system based on universalism, equity and regional balance. Correcting the historical injustice suffered by the African continent as the only continent not represented in the permanent category of the Council and at the same time under-represented in the non-permanent category was imperative, long overdue and must be addressed.

The African Group argues that Africa must be fully represented in all decision-making organs of the United Nations, including the Council. For African countries, reform of UNSC is critical matter for the two reasons: 1) eight out of 15 UN peacekeeping operations are in Africa, 2) about 75 percent of the organization's 92, 541 peacekeepers deployed on the continent. Africa is therefore well positioned to press the case for a more transparent, accountable, and democratic Council (Stagno et al 2013: 13).

The 'Uniting for consensus' proposal

The UfC group is adamantly opposed to the creation of new permanent members, and advocates the creation of ten new non-permanent members elected on a rotation basis by the regional groups, including three new seats for Africa, three for Asia, two for Latin America and one new seat for Western and Eastern Europe.
A third model was promoted by the 'Uniting for Consensus' ( UfC) Group, this is a loose association of nations either opposing more permanent members as a matter of democratic principle, or seeking to prevent the ascension to permanency of one or other of their regional rivals. In this model, while enlargement was endorsed, it would not include the creation of any new permanent seats. The Uniting for Consensus (UfC proposal, it was created to counter the G4 proposal. The Uniting for Consensus is a group of approximately 40 States, whose leaders include Italy, Pakistan, South Korea and Colombia. After having agreed with the need to increase the representativeness of the Security Council, in 2005 the UfC made a proposal that centres on an enlargement of the number of non-permanent members from ten to twenty. They argued that the non-permanent members would be elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term and would be eligible for immediate re-election, subject to the decision of their respective geographical groups. It is interesting to note that Italy and Columbia, acted as representatives of the UfC group put forward a new model of reform on 20 April 2009, which was presented as a concrete attempt to reach a deal. In the document was a proposal for the creating of a new category of seats, still non-permanent, but elected for an extended duration (3 to 5 years without the possibility of an immediate re-elections. In this regard, this new kind of seats would not be allocated to single national countries but rather to regional groups on a rotational basis.
This group argued that in order to strengthen the representativeness of the council, ten additional non-permanent seats would be created. The non-permanent members would be elected to seats distributed among the existing, recognized region as follows: six from Africa, five from Asia, four from Latin America, and the Caribbean, three from Western Europe and other States, and two from Eastern Europe. This group implies that each region would determine which member states among their member would be proposed for the newly created positions, (Zifcak 2009: 18-19).

To sum up, as far as traditional categories of seats are concerned, the UfC proposal does not imply any change, but only the introduction of small and medium size states among groups eligible for regular, non-permanent seats. All in all, this proposition includes even the question of veto, giving a narrow range of options that goes from abolition to limitation of the application of the veto on Chapter VII matters.

The Italian Position

The Italian position, Italy firmly rejected the G4 and African proposals. According to Italy, the G4 is trying to exclude the UfC proposal from the floor, on the basis of presumed level of support. Italy believes that it has shown flexibility by putting forward a new proposal on 20 April 2009, while the G4 remained tied to its 2005 document. According to Italy, the principle of representation should be accentuated. Italy argued that the expansion of permanent seats would not solve the Security Council's problems of legitimacy and representativeness. Italy confidently believes that only periodic elections could ensure democratic and transparent criteria for selection.
Furthermore Italy remains convinced that only by including regional dimension in a reformed Security Council is it possible to face international political stability. In compliance with this position the Italian government suggests that states sit on the Council on a rotational basis to represent regional interests.
In this respect, the call for a better accountability of the Council is centred on allocating seats to Member States based on regions on a rotational basis that would represent regional interests.


Theories of International Relations

International Relations theories help me to explain the world of international relations. They are central to explaining the dynamics of world politics, whether one is interested in regionalism, identity, security, or foreign policy. The reason for choosing these theories is the possibility of exploring the explanatory potential and limitation in international system. There is also benefit of adopting these theories as they operate on different levels of analysis; for example, realism is preoccupied with states and power relations. Constructivism, on the other hand, belongs to the post-positivist school of thought and has been chosen to provide a counter weight of the other theories by highlighting the importance of ideas and values. This research will analyse the lines of thought within the theories of International Relations, because theoretical perspective of the United Nations Security Council reform proposals is significant. When discussing reform of the United Nations Security Council, three main concepts will be dealt with: representation, democracy and legitimacy.

Classical Realism

Classical realism has displayed a fundamental unity of thought across nearly 2500 years. Lebow (2013) mentions that the principal thinkers in this tradition as Thucydides, Niccoló Machiavelli, Carl Von Clausewitz and Hans J. Morgenthau are concerned with questions of order, justice and change, at the domestic, regional and international levels. He also indicates that this theory underscores the similarities, not the differences, between domestic and international politics, and stresses the importance of ethics and community in promoting stability in both domains (Lebow 2013:60).
For realists, International Relations is shaped by a struggle for power, which defines the constraints within which law, morality and ideals must operate. Guilhot (2011:102-102) argues that realists see the logic of power incontrovertible, more "real" than the artifices of universalistic law, morality, religion, or utopia hopes for progress. Jackson at al (1999: 69) pointed out that in realist though humans are characterized as being preoccupied with their own well-being in their competitive relations with each other. This pessimistic view of human nature is strongly evident in the international relations theory of Hans Morgenthau, who was probably the leading realist thinker of the twentieth century. Morgenthau sees men and women as having a 'will to power to power'. That is particular evident in politics and especially international politics. "Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action" (Jackson et al 1999: 69).
According to Morgenthau (1965), men and women are by nature political animals: they are born to pursue power and to enjoy the fruits of power, (Jackson et al 1999: 76). Morgenthau speaks of the animus dominandi, the human 'lust' for power. The human animus dominandi inevitably brings men and women into conflict with each other. According to Jackson et al 1999, it creates the condition of power politics, which is at the heart not only of Morgenthau's realism but also of all classical and neoclassical realist conceptions of international relations.
For Morgenthau, 'politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action'.

Morgenthau further argues that if people desire to enjoy a political space free from the intervention or control of foreigners, they will have to mobilize their power and deploy their power for that purpose. In this sense, people will have to organize themselves into a capable and effective state by means of which they can defend their interests. The system of states leads to international anarchy and conflict, (Jackson et al 1999: 77).

Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and indeed all classical realists share that perspective to a greater or lesser extent. They believe that the goal of power, the means of power, and the uses of power are a central preoccupation of political activity. In essence, international politics is thus portrayed as above all else, 'power politics': an arena of rivalry, conflict, and war between states in which the same basic problems of defending the national interest and ensuring the continued survival of the state repeat themselves over and over again. Realists therefore operate with a core assumption that world politics unfolds in an international anarchy, a system with no overarching authority, and no world government. For realists, the state is the pre-eminent actor in world politics. International relations are primarily relations of states. According to Jackson et al 1999: 69), International relations are understood by realist as primarily a struggle among the great powers for domination and security.

Realist theory believes that the central units of the international political system are sovereign nation-states, and that the absence of an impartial global authority to keep all countries in line for example world government means global politics is organized as anarchy (Erickson 2015). According to Erickson (2015:28) the basic idea is that without a top-down rule of law imposed and enforced fairly across individual interests the world nation-states have no choice but look after their own individual interests, as no one else will.
Classical realism recognizes that communal bonds are fragile and easily undermined by the unrestrained pursuit of unilateral advantage by individuals, factions and states. When this happens, time-honoured mechanism of conflict management like alliances and the balance of power may not only fail to preserve the peace but may make domestic and international violence more likely, (Lebow 2013:60). Thucydides and Morgenthau agreed that the tensions between individuals and communities could be reconciled in part at a deeper level of understanding. This is because a well-functioning community is essential to the intelligent formation and pursuit of individual interests (Lebow 2013:60).

Classical realists focus on community and advocate for an effective central authority to be in place. They stress the importance of having governments that defend borders, enforce laws and protect citizens in order to make domestic politics more peaceful and qualitatively different from international politics. Lebow (2013) expresses concerns that the international arena remains a self-help system, a brutal arena where states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other. Lebow (2013:9 argues that survival of states depend on a state's material capabilities and its alliances with other states.

For classical realists, all politics is an expression of human drives and subject to the some pathology (Lebow 2013). According to Lebow (2013:60), classical realists see more variation in order and stability within domestic and international systems than they do between them and, explain it with reference to the cohesiveness of society, domestic or international, and the channels into which it channels human drives and passions. He highlighted on Morgenthau's understanding of the relationship between domestic and international politics mirror that of Thucydides. Morgenthau insists that all politics is a struggle for power that is inseparable from social life itself. Lebow 2013:61-62) maintains that in many countries, laws, institutions and norms direct the struggle for power into ritualized and socially accepted channels. However, in the international arena, the struggle cannot so readily be tamed.
Moreover, contemporary realists view the balance of power as contentious between nation-states. For contemporary realists, they consider military capability and alliances the foundation of security. Lebow (2013:62) observed in Aristotle that 'when people are friends, they have not needed for justice, but when they are just they need friends as well. For classical realists on the other hand, they generally recognize that military power and alliances are double-edged swords, they are as likely to provoke as to prevent conflict (Lebow 2013:63).
For Thucydides, he called the International Relations as the inevitable competitions and conflicts between ancient Greek city-states and between Hellas and neighbouring non-Greek empires, such as Macedonia or Persian. According to him, neither states of Hellas nor their non- Greek neighbours were in any sense equal. On the contrary, they were substantially unequal; there were a few 'great powers', such as Athens, Sparta, the Persian Empire, and many smaller and lesser powers such as the tiny island statelets of the Aegean Sea. Jackson et al (1999:71-72) concurred with Thucydides that inequality was considered to be inevitable and natural.

Thucydides also accentuating the ethics of caution and prudence in the conduct of foreign policy in an international world of great inequality, of restricted foreign-policy choices, and of ever-present danger as well as opportunity. Foresight, prudence, caution, judgment are the characteristic political ethics of classical realism which Thucydides and most other classical realists are at pains to distinguish from private morality and the principle of justice. Jackson et al (1999:71) argue that if countries wish to survive and prosper, they had better pay attention to these fundamental political maxims of international relations.

Both Morgenthau and Thucydides understand politics as a struggle for power and unilateral advantage. They maintain that military capability and alliances are necessary safeguards in the rough-and-tumble world of international relations, but cannot be counted on to preserve the peace or the independence of actors. Lebow (2013:63) supports classical realists that order, domestic and international, ultimately rest on the strength of community. This is demonstrated on the fact that when a common culture, conventions and personal ties bind states and their rulers, competition for power is restrained in its ends and means. In this context, a balance of power might prevent some wars and restrict the severity of others. Lebow (2012) further contends that in the absence of community, military capability and alliances are no guarantee of security, and can provoke wars they were intended to prevent.

Normative International Relations Theory

Normative international relations theory draws on a rich combination of arguments, distinctions, and concerns from political theory, moral philosophy, and the relatively new discipline of international relations. It encompasses a variety of approaches, and theories which, nevertheless, share the aim of exploring moral expectations, decisions, and dilemmas in the world politics, (Erskine, 2012:37). Erskine (2012) underscores the contributions made to this area of scholarship to take concepts such as justice, duty, and rights, which have been central to political theorist's traditional focus on the bounded community, and extended them to the international level. According to Erskine (2012), Normative International Relations philosophy adopted and adapted conceptual categories such as Communitarianism and Cosmopolitanism from political theory. Erskine (2012) argues that Normative International Relations Theory is often referred to as 'international political theory' or simply 'international ethics'.

6.1.3 Liberalism Theory

The liberal traditional in International Relations is closely connected with the emergence of the modern liberal state. Jackson et al (1999: 108-109) argued that liberal philosophers, beginning with John Locke in the 17th century, saw great potential for human progress in modern civil society and capitalist economy, both of which could flourish in states which guaranteed individual liberty. For liberalists, modernisation is a process involving progress in most areas of life. They believe that the process of modernisation enlarges the scope for cooperation across international boundaries. Progress to them means a better life for at least the majority of individuals.
I am aware of other theories of liberalism such as sociological, interdependence, and institutional liberalism; however, the focus of this study is on the Republican liberalism. Republican Liberalism is built on the claim that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law-abiding than are other political systems. The argument is not that democracies never go to war; democracies have gone to war as often as have non-democracies. The debate is not that democracies do not fight each other, (Jackson et al 1999:123).
According to Jackson et al (1999), there are three elements behind the claim that democracy leads to peace with other democracies, 1) the mere existence of liberal democracies whose domestic political cultures are based on peaceful conflict resolutions. Democracy encourages peaceful international relations because democratic governments are controlled by their citizens, who will not advocate or support wars with other democracies; 2) democracies hold common moral values which lead to the formation of what Kant called a 'pacific union'. The union is not formal peace treaty; rather, it is a zone of peace based on the common moral foundations of all democracies. Peaceful ways of solving domestic conflict are seen as morally superior to violent behaviour, and 3) peace between democracies is strengthened through economic cooperation and interdependence. In the pacific union it is possible to encourage what Kant called 'the spirit of commerce': mutual and reciprocal gain for those involved in international economic cooperation and exchange.
The most important transformation in world politics over the past sixty years derives from the concurrent and interlinked expansion of three key phenomena associated with liberalism and its emphasis on the potentially peace-promoting effects of domestics and transnational institutions, remarkably the spread of democracy; the multiple networks of communication; trade and finance; the multiplication of intergovernmental organizations (Russett, 2013:94). This perspective, sometimes labelled liberal institutionalism, is associated with classical analysts like John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Immanuel Kant. " Kant proposes that 'republican constitutions, commercial exchange embodied in 'cosmopolitan law' and a system of international law among republics governed domestically by the rule of law would provide the basis for sustained peace", (Russett, 2013:95). Kant believes that natural process of self-interest could impel rational individuals to act as agents to bring a just peace. Russett (2013) maintains that Kant was also realistic in accepting that nations must act prudently until a 'federation' of interdependent republics is established. It is worth to mention that the Kantian perspective has frequently been characterized as antithetical to realism. On the other hand, liberal internationalism arising from Kant has underscored the fact that war and conflict can be overcome, or mitigated, through concerted changes in both the domestic and international structures of governance (Russett 2013). Kant accepted Hobbes' description of conflict among many of the nations, but he went far beyond it. Russett (2013:95) shows that the pacific federation Kant envisioned is more accurately a confederation, and not a world state. According to Russet (2013), confederation's members remain sovereign linked only by partially federal institutions as in Europe today, or by collective security alliances. Russett (2013:95) indicates the difference between the two traditions that Kant views democratic government, economic interdependence, and international law and organizations as ways to overcome the security dilemma of the international system. Russett (2013) illustrates that the three elements of Kant's pacific federation would enhanced over time to produce a more peaceful world. Individual desire to be free and prosperous, so democracy and trade will expand, which leads naturally to the growth of international law and organization to facilitate these processes. Kant disputes that the achievement of durable peace is not mechanical, not is the outcome determined. For Kant, human agents must learn from their own and others' experience, including the experience of war, (Russett 2012).

Liberal theory agrees with realism that sovereign states are the core units of international politics, and the global system is anarchic in nature due to the absence of supranational world government. In the contrary, realism believes that states are always focused on international survival, however, this tradition argues in the opposite that the interests which states pursue internationally ultimately depend on the internal political and dominant individuals and groups in a country, which may change over time (Erickson 2015). Erickson (2015:30) contends that liberals agree that states will seek out power, but see a potential for countries to put relative power concerns aside in pursuit of individual gains in certain circumstances. He pointed out that Liberals sees international interdependence as a possibility if the dominant groups in different countries agree that cooperation, and trade liberalization to open up trade borders, is in their own best interests, and that this incentive can motivate strategic interdependence in trade, (Erickson 2015).

International Society

The International Society tradition is a historical and institutional approach to world politics that focuses on human beings and their political values. Central to this approach is the study of ideas and ideologies that shape world politics. Jackson et al (1999: 139) argued that the basic assumptions of International Society tradition are: 1) a claim that international relations are branch of human relations at the heart of which are basic values such as independence, security, order, and justice; 2) a human-focused approach: the international Relations scholar is called upon to interpret the thoughts and actions of the people involved in international relations; 39 acceptance of the premise of international anarchy. Jackson et al (1999: 140) also argued that Hedley Bull (1969:20) summarized this "traditional) international society approach as follows: it derived from 'philosophy, history and law' and 'it is characterized above all by explicit reliance upon the exercise of judgment'. By the exercise of judgment, Bull meant that International Relations scholars should fully understand that foreign policy sometimes presents difficult moral choices to the states people involved. For example choices about conflicting political values and goals. International Society tradition seeks to avoid the stark choice between (1) state egotism and conflict and (2) human goodwill and cooperation presented by the debate between realism and liberalism. On the one hand Jackson at 1999: 141) contended that this classical International Relations approach reject classical realists' singularly pessimistic views of states as self-sufficient and self-regarding political organizations which relate to each other and deal with each other only on an instrumental basis of narrow self- interest. International relations conceived as a state 'system' that is prone to recurrent discord, conflict, and sooner or later, war. On the other hand, they reject classical liberalism's singularly optimistic view of international relations as a developing world community that is conducive to unlimited human progress and perpetual peace.

Multilateralism

Multilateralism has been increasing accepted as the modus operandi in world politics, and in global environment politics in particular. Powell, (2003: 03) points out that over the last few decades, nations have come to realize that the challenges of security, peacekeeping, disease control, human right violations, and pollution, among others, are two vast and complex for any nation or group of nations, no matter how powerful, to effectively manage on its own. To this end, of the many global issues that would be best managed through multilateral cooperation, a significant number are environmental in nature.

According to Powell (2003), the first documented use of the term "multilateral's to describe international arrangements dates back to 1858. The noun form of the word, "multilateralism", on the other hand, only came into use in 1928, in the aftermath of the First World War. "Multilateralism was then defined as "international governance of the 'many'", and its central principle was opposition [of] bilateral and discriminatory arrangements that were believed to enhance the leverage of the powerful over the weak and to increase international conflict", (Powell, 2003:05).

The terminology was further defined in 1990, by Robert Keohane as "the practice of coordinating national policies in groups of three or more states". In 1992 article, John Ruggie agreed that this was an accurate definition of multilateralism, but called it "nominal" and criticized it for being incomplete. Ruggie (1992) observed, "is distinctive about multilateralism is not merely that it coordinates national policies in groups of three or more states, which is something that other organizational forms also do, but that it does so on the basis of certain principles of ordering relations among these states. He thus formulated a substantive definition of multilateralism, which states that "multilateralism refers to coordinating relations among three or more states in accordance with certain principles", which James Caporaso, publishing at the same time as Ruggie, more succinctly articulates. As Caporaso explains, "As an organizing principle, the institution of multilateralism is distinguished from other forms by three properties: 1) Indivisibility, 2) Generalized principles of conduct, and 3) Diffuse reciprocity. According to him, indivisibility can be thought of as the scope (both geographic and functional) over which costs and benefits are spread. Whilst, generalized principles of conduct usually come in the form of norms exhorting general if not universal modes of relating to other states, rather than differentiating relations case-by-case on the basis of individual preferences, situational exigencies, or a prior particularistic grounds. Diffuse reciprocity on the other hand, adjusts the utilitarian lenses for the long view emphasizing that actors expect to benefit in the long run and over many issues rather than every time on every issue, (Powell (2003:05-06).

Keohane () defined multilateralism as the practice promoting trade among several countries through agreements concerning quality and price of commodity. Newman et al (2006:05) described the idea of multilateralism as a form of common action among states in international relations. In a fundamental sense, multilateral arrangements are therefore institutions, defined by Keohane as "persistent sets of rules, that constrain activity, shape expectations, and prescribe rules". He points out that states are the principal actors or unit of analysis. Newman et al (2006:05) further provide a more elaborate definition: multilateralism depicts a generic institutional form in international relations. It is an institutional form that coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct.
According to preamble of the United Nations charter, multilateralism means 'establishing conditions under which justice and obligation arising from treaties and other source of international law can be maintained. Multilateralism is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working in concert on a given issue. Multilateralism is the key, for it ensures the participation of all in the management of world affairs.

Critics of multilateralism warn that it interferes with market operation, is characterized by bureaucratic enforcement, and fails to accommodate the different preferences and capabilities of differently developing countries. Powell (2003:06) argues that multilateralism poses a risk to developing countries insofar as multilateral agreement call up them to implement regulatory measures beyond their reasonable capacity to do so. As a matter of fact, developing countries do not have the financial and technological resource base readily available to industrialized nations. As a result, internationally determined policy changes are often both more difficult for developing countries to comply with, and less of a priority for them to implement, than more fundamental policies, for example to reduce poverty and improve access to basic services. Powell (2003) further contends that the requirements of multilateral agreements can also hinder further development in developing countries, by demanding the reduction or termination of activities that would facilitate more rapid economic development. He warns that by entering into multilateral agreements, developing countries thus run the risk of signing themselves into a regulatory corner that, while protecting "global" resources, will reduce their potential for future economic growth and their citizens' ability to meet their basic needs.
Furthermore, multilateralism is considered to be the most egalitarian form of international cooperation and decision-making, and multilateral institutions are among the very few forms in which developing countries can potentially have an equal voice. Powell (2003:07) states objectively those developing countries greatly outnumber developed countries in a one-country-one-vote framework, such nations are given the opportunity (at least in theory) to exert an influence as great, if not greater, than their developed counterparts. He noted that multilateralism in general, and multilateral institutions in particular, thus provide a more democratic means of determining which global issues should be addressed and how states should address them.
In the same vein, critics are correct in noting that multilateralism imperils to, and often does, leave developing countries underrepresented at the bargaining table. To this end, under-representation is significantly preferable to the complete lack of representation that developing countries would enjoy under international arrangements that were not even egalitarian in theory.

In the past few years, however, multilateralism has come under fire, as the world's greatest sovereign power, the United States, has chosen to disregard that cooperative norm when it has found it convenient to do so. "Since 1990, scepticism has increased in the U.S foreign policy community about the value of multilateralism in the country's global engagement", (Powell, 2003:03). Disputably, it was disregard more than scepticism that the Bush administration demonstrated in April 2003 when it chose to ignore international consensus and the will of the UNSC by invading Iraq. In so doing, the U. S flagrantly bypassed the multilateral norms and institutions designed to lend authority and legitimacy to such action. "Notably, many of the challenges confronting multilateral institutions have been associated with U. S military and economic pre-eminence in a unipolar world, and attendant pattern of U.S unilateralism", (Newman, 2006:02).

In November 2003, Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General observed that "the past year has been shaken the foundations of collective security and undermined confidence in the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It has also brought to the fore deep divergences of opinion on the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future", (Newman et al, 2006:01). The lack of support extends to other policy areas. The classical example is the fact that the United States, China, Russia and many other countries do not support the International Criminal Court (ICC) and thus render its jurisdiction very limited. According to a 2004 high-level panel report endorsed by the UNSC, the main global multilateral regime responsible for promoting and protecting human rights "suffers from a legitimacy deficit that casts doubts on the overall reputation of the United Nations". The Kyoto Protocol to regulate Climate Change is jeopardized by key abstentions. A range of multilateral arms control treaties and conventions are being eroded, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Others, such as the International Convention to Ban Anti-Personnel Landmines are not supported by key states. Newman (2006) further argues that in their decision-making procedures and their representation, many international organisations do not meet contemporary standards and expectations of legitimacy based upon accountability and democracy. In addition, the future of multilateralism has become embroiled in a transatlantic split and competing visions of world order.

Powell (2003) observed inconsistent and double standards in multilateral institutions by referring to the unilateral decision by President Bush. He noted that Bush administration's circumvention of international cooperative norms and institutions has notably included the refusal to cooperate with multilateral efforts to govern the global commons in order to curb the degradation of our global resources and work toward a sustainable future. In March 2003, President G. W. Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol "dead", signifying his decision to abandon the treaty completely (the U. S is the only major carbon dioxide emitter to have rejected the Kyoto process). On the other, the international community responded with the Marrakech Accords, an effort to clarify several details of the treaty, which would have made compliance less burdensome to the U. S, but President Bush "shunned" these negotiations. Powell (2003:10) argues that from the U. S's refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when held in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua (1986), to its failure to ratify the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989), and from its complete abandonment of the Kyoto protocol (2001), to its renunciation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) 2002, the United States has demonstrated time and again that it is not willing to compromise its sovereign rights to international standards of conduct.

Methodology

This paper is based on both qualitative and descriptive research in nature. It relies on secondary data. Secondary data are to be collected from published and unpublished documents, relevant books, articles, journals, newspapers and online materials as well as websites. This study is focusing on qualitative method in order to see precisely how the debates and discussions of the reform of the UNSC have been expressed and articulated over the years. Although, qualitative research analyses data from direct fieldwork observations, in-dept., open-ended interviews, this article depends on written documents. The qualitative research methods to be used include analysis of texts or documents, and the analysis of recorded speech, or videos.

In the same vein, the study is a descriptive one. The descriptive research attempts to describe systematically a situation and problem in order to provide information about the need for the reform of the UNSC. The method of documentary analysis enables the researcher to include large amounts of textual information and systematically identify its properties. Documentary analysis could be defined as a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of manifest content of communication. This technique is not restricted to the domain of textual analysis, but may be applied to other areas such as memos, minutes of the meetings, legal and policy statements. Texts in documentary analysis can be defined broadly as books, book chapters, Journal, essays, interviews, discussion, newspaper headlines and articles, historical documents, speeches, both formal and informal conversation. Descriptive research method such as document analysis is employed in this study.


Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a general consensus that the United Nations Security Council should be enlarged. It is a high time to utilize this "moment for reform". Revision of the alternative discussions, platforms and debate about the reform of the UNSC should be intensified. This research support the views of the regional representation and adjustment and neutralization of the veto power. The paper encourages alliances and member states to advance their national interests and objectives through dialogue.



Selected bibliography

Bowles R. N., et al. 1993. In the UN Reform: A year in the life of the General Assembly: 1993 Session. New York.
Bellamy, A. Williams, P and Griffin, S. 2010. Peace operations in global politics, in Understanding Peacekeeping, 2nd edition, Great Britain, Cambridge & Malden: Polity Press.
Blokker, N. 2005a. The Security Council and the use of force- on recent practice. In Blocker Niels & Nico Schrijver (eds). The Security Council and the use of force: Theory and reality-A need for change? Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NC.
Buckman, M. A., 2003. Responsibility of Command: How UN and NATO commanders influenced airpower over Bosnia. Maxwell Air force Base, Alabama, Air University Press.
Bull, H. 1995. "The concept of order in world politics" in the anarchical society-A study of order in world politics. London, Macmillan.
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A study of Order in World Politics. New York , Columbia University Press.
Campbell, H. 2000. The Peace Narrative and Education for Peace in Africa. In Jinadu, L. A. 2000. The Political Economy of peace and security in Africa: Ethnocultural and economic perspectives. Harare, Print Source (Pty) Ltd.
Colodny, L. and Shachtman, T. The Forty Years War: The rise and fall of the Neocons, from Nixon to Obama. Harper Collins e-books.
Crocker, C.1993. High Noon in Southern African: Making Peace in a rough neighbourhood. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Diplomatic Handbook, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Yangon.
Dunne, T and Gifkins, J. 2011. Libya and the state of intervention. Australian Journal of international Affairs vol.65, No.3 pp. 515-529, November 2011.
Edozie, R. K., et al. 2014. The African Union's Africa New Pan-African initiatives in Global governance. In the African Union democracy: Navigating indigenous rights and inclusions in neoliberal contexts. Michigan State University Press, United States of America.
Erskine, R. 2013. Normative International relation Theory. In Dunne, T., et al. International Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd edition), United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
Geldenshuys, D. 1984. The Diplomacy of Isolation: South African Foreign Policy Making. (Johannesburg: Macmillan South Africa, 1984), P. 146.
Gerard, H and Kagwanja, P. 2007. "Identity and Peace: Reconfiguring conflict resolution in Africa". African Journal on conflict resolution 7 (2). 9-36.
Goulding, M. 1996. The use of force by the United Nations, International peacekeeping, 3:1, 1-18.
Gowan, R. 2010. 'The tragedy of 21st century UN Peacekeeping'. World politics review-UN Peacekeeping. The New Blue 19 May: 1-4.
Gupta, K. R. (ed). 2006a. Reform of the United Nations, volume 1. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
Guilhot, N. 2011. The invention of International Relations Theory. New York. Columbia University Press.
Hogan, J. et al. 2009. Approaches to qualitative research: Theory and its practical application. A guide for Dissertation students. Published by Oak Tree press, Ireland.
Hurd, I. 2012. 'The United Nations' in Devetak, R, Burke, A and George, J (eds), An introduction to international relations.
Jackson, R. and SØrensen, G. 1999. Introduction to International Relations. New York, Oxford University Press.
Kissinger, H. 1994. Diplomacy. New York. Simon & Schuster.
Lebow , R. N. 2013. Classical realism. In Dunne, T., et al. International Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd edition), United Kingdom, Oxford University Press,
Mearsheimer, J. J. 2013. Structural Realism. In Dunne, T., et al. International Relations theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd edition), United Kingdom, Oxford University Press.
Macdonald, A. Veteran Negotiator pursues Syria' mission impossible: Reuters, 29 January 2014.
Mearsheimer, J. J. & Walt, S. 2008. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
McDonald, Matt and Jackson, R. 2008. "Selling war: The Coalition of the willing and the war on terror". Paper presented at the International Studies Association conference, San Francisco, Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/my-esrc/grants/REC-000-22-2126/outputs/Download/463ddcld-6aeb-4713-ba82-21 efce37fbo.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2004. White Paper on Namibia's Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Management. Government of the Republic of Namibia Printer. March 2004.
Newcombe, H. et al. 1995. United Nations Reforms: Looking ahead after fifty years. Canada. Science for Peace.
Newman, E. et al. 2006. Multilateralism under challenges? Power, International Order and structural change. New York, .The United Nations University.
Okhovat, S. 2012. The United Nations Security Council: Its veto power and its reform. CPASS Working Paper no. 15/1. University of Sydney. Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. Australia.
Persson, A. L. 2004. Reform of the UNSC: Communitarianism versus Cosmopolitanism. Lund University, Sweden.
Polanyi, J. C. 1995. From Peacekeeping to Peace-making, in United Nations Reforms: Looking ahead after fifty years. Science for Peace, Canada.
Powell, C. and Koltz, T. 2013. It worked for me: In life and leadership. Harper Collins Publishers, United States of America.
Powell, L. 2003. In Defence of Multilateralism. Prepared for Global Environmental governance: the Post-Johannesberg Agenda. 23.25 October 2003. Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT.
Pope, C., et al. 2006. Qualitative research in health care. United States of America, Blackwell publishing Limited BMJT Books.
Ramsbotham, O. 2005. "Introduction" in Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and transformation of deadly conflict, 2nd edition. Malden: Polity Press.
ReformtheUn.org. 2006. Member States refine positions on UNSC reform (4 January 2006) [Online]. Available from http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php/eupdate/4800 [Accessed 15 May 2014].
Security Council Reform. 2009. Security Council reform: membership including expansion and representation [Online]. Available from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster 1 index.htm [Accessed 15 May 2014].
Rodrigues, R. M. A new wave for the reform of the Security Council of the United Nations: Great expectations but little results.
Siba, G. 2011. " Looking beyond spring for the season: An African perspective on the World order after the Arab revolt". The disorder of things. 20 July. Available at: http://thedisorderofthings.com/2011/07/20/looking-beyond-spring-for-the season- an- african-perspective-on-the-world-order-after-the-arab-revolt/.
Siba, G. 2011. " Looking beyond spring for the season: The West, the African Union, and the International community". " The disorder of things". 11 August. Available at: http://thedisorderofthings.com/2011/08/11/looking-beyond-spring-for-the-season-the-west-the-african-union-and-international-community/.
Schlesinger, S. C. 2003. Act of creation: The founding of the United Nations: A story of super powers, secret agents, wartime allies and enemies, and the their quest for a peaceful world. Westview Press, Cambridge, United States of America.
Sofer, S. 2005. 'Guardians of the practitioners' virtue: Diplomats at the Warrior's Den, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 16:1, 1-12.
Talosig, D. A. International Organisations.
Thakur, R. 2012. "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect". Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies: Available at: http://iss.co.za/uploads/6mar2012Libya.pdf.
The Centre for Conflict Resolution. Seminar Report, 23-24 April 2005. A more secure continent: African perspectives on the UN High- Level Panel Report: A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Somerset West, Cape Town, South Africa.
The United Nations, Charter of the United Nations. 1945. United Nations Website, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml, accessed on 06 October 2014.
Thompson, A. et al. 1999. International Organizations, University of Chicago, The United States of America.
Ugarte B. S. and Jonah, J. 2013. Africa and the Reform of the UN Security Council. In Africa, South Africa, and the United Nations' Security Architecture. Policy Advisory Group Seminar Report. Centre for Conflict Resolution. Western Cape, South Africa.
UNGA Resolution 2758. 1971. Restoration of the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. (25 October 1971) [Online]. Available from http:// www. Undemocracy.com/A-RES-2758 (XXVI)/page_1/rect_485,223_914,684 [Accessed 15 May 2014].
UNGA. 2004. Report of the High-level Panel on threats, challenges and change: A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. UN Doc. A/59/565 [Online]. Available from http://www.un.org/secureworld/ [Accessed 15 May 2014].
UNSC. 2008. Report of the Security Council: Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. Joint Debate. New York: United Nations [Online]. Available from http://www.un.org/ga/62/plenary/bkg.shtml [Accessed 13 May 2014].
Walker, I. 2007. The five permanent member of the Security Council. Philadelphia, PA: Mason Crest Publishers.
Wilkinson, P. 2007. International Relations: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Great Britain.
Wiseberg, L. S. 1993. The Vienna World conference on Human Rights, in the UN Reform: A year in the life of the General Assembly: 1993 Session.
Wiseman, G. 2004. "Polylateralism" and New modes of global dialogue.
Wood, M. 2006. The UN Security Council and international law. Hersch Lauterpacht memorial Lectures: University of Cambridge: Lauterpacht centre for international Law.
Yihdego, Z. 2011. The African Union: Founding Principles, frameworks and prospects. In European Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 5, September 20111, pp. 568-594. Oxford, United Kingdom. Blackwel publishing Limited.
Zifcak, S. 2009. United Nations Reform: Heading North or South? New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.