Q.Critically evaluate the difficulties involved in implementing the suggested reforms to reconstruct the UN.
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →Reforming the United Nations is a deeply political and structural challenge, where every proposed change — from Security Council expansion to veto reform — runs into entrenched national interests, procedural deadlock, and the fundamental tension between the UN’s founding principles and today’s geopolitical realities.
The United Nations was created in 1945, a world away from the one we live in now. Its architecture — especially the Security Council — reflects the power balance at the end of the Second World War. Five permanent members (the P5: US, UK, France, Russia, China) hold veto power, and the General Assembly operates on a one-country-one-vote principle. For decades, voices from the Global South, rising economic powers, and even some Western allies have called for a thorough overhaul. But the gap between the desire for reform and its implementation is vast, and the reasons are worth understanding carefully.
The most visible and contentious reform proposal is the expansion of the Security Council. The argument is straightforward: the Council’s 15 members (5 permanent, 10 elected for two-year terms) no longer represent the world’s population or economic weight. Countries like India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and South Africa argue for permanent seats. Yet every expansion plan runs into a wall of opposition. Existing permanent members are reluctant to dilute their own influence — especially the veto power, which they see as a non-negotiable tool of national sovereignty. Moreover, regional rivals block each other: Pakistan opposes India’s bid, Italy and Spain resist Germany, Argentina stands against Brazil. The result is a diplomatic stalemate that has lasted decades.
Even if the Council were expanded, there is no agreement on whether new permanent members should also get the veto. Most current P5 members oppose extending the veto, which would create a two-tier permanent membership — a compromise that satisfies almost no one.
The veto itself is a second major obstacle. Abolishing or restricting it is often proposed, especially after the UN’s paralysis on crises like Syria or Ukraine. But the P5 treat the veto as a constitutional right, not a privilege. Any amendment to the UN Charter requires ratification by two-thirds of the General Assembly and all five permanent members. In practice, that means no permanent member will vote to limit its own veto. The veto is not just a procedural tool; it is the ultimate expression of great-power privilege within the UN system. Reform here is not difficult — it is structurally impossible under the current rules.
A third set of difficulties surrounds the General Assembly and the broader institutional culture. The Assembly is often criticised as a talking shop, where resolutions are non-binding and the real decisions happen elsewhere. Proposals to make the Assembly more effective — such as weighted voting based on population or economic contribution — are met with fierce resistance from smaller nations. For them, the one-country-one-vote principle is the only guarantee of equality in a system otherwise dominated by the powerful. Any move away from that principle would be seen as a betrayal of the UN’s foundational ideal.
The UN Charter itself is extraordinarily difficult to amend. Article 108 requires a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. This means any single P5 member can block reform indefinitely — and they have. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.