Strengthening Global Governance at the UN Security Council

In a time of rising global challenges, the UN Security Council faces increasing pressure to evolve. Fletcher School Professor Ian Johnstone, a seasoned expert in international law and former UN Political Officer, brings his unique perspective to a new book, Empowering the UN Security Council: Reforms to Address Modern Threats. Through his chapter, Johnstone proposes ways to enhance the Council's legitimacy by making its actions more transparent and inclusive. We sat down with Professor Johnstone to delve into his recommendations, discussing how the UN can adapt to build a more responsive, accountable Security Council.

In Empowering the UN Security Council: Reforms to Address Modern Threats, you recommend steps to enhance the legitimacy of Security Council actions. What specific reforms would you suggest?

Expanding the Security Council’s membership and addressing the veto power are the most direct ways to strengthen its legitimacy. Of course, that is easier said than done. Both require an amendment to the UN Charter, meaning all five permanent members (P5) and two-thirds of the UN member states must agree. This level of consensus has been hard to achieve, even after decades of discussion. 

Important as those reforms are, our book focuses on steps that don’t require a Charter amendment, making them less politically daunting and more feasible.  In my chapter, I offer two sets of proposals. The first is about empowering the non-permanent members of the Council, the so-called “elected 10” (or E10). Acting together, the E10 hold significant power, which they can use to press the P5 into action on issues one or more might prefer to avoid. Each E10 member can also represent broader groups—for example, the three African members often speak for the 55-member Africa Group, and a small island nation could voice the concerns of the many countries threatened by climate change.

The second proposal is to make the Security Council’s informal consultations more open and transparent. While it’s not possible (or practical) for every country to participate in all Council discussions, requiring members to justify their actions (or inaction) publicly can increase accountability.

The so-called “veto initiative” does precisely that.  Launched by the Permanent Mission of Lichtenstein and approved by consensus in the UN General Assembly (GA), the initiative triggers an automatic meeting of the GA whenever one of the P5 members casts a veto, where the country must justify its decision before the entire UN membership and the global community. While this initiative doesn’t lead to a specific outcome, it’s designed to make it politically harder for Council members to use the veto when their actions may appear unjustified.

Given the frequent gridlock in the Security Council, how can it remain effective in addressing global conflicts?

In the immediate post-Cold War era, the Security Council was free from superpower rivalry, allowing it to be more active and sometimes even criticized for “overreaching”—establishing international criminal tribunals, imposing counterterrorism obligations, and setting up peace operations with trustee-like powers . Today, however, the concern is that the Council is becoming underactive and underachieving. Geopolitical tensions and the veto power have made it impossible for the Council to act on Ukraine, Myanmar and the Israel-Gaza conflict. The fear is that the Council will become completely paralyzed, failing completely in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. 

UN Charter Article 24(1) specifies that the Council acts on behalf of all UN members. While it has wide discretion in deciding whether, when and how it responds, I argue that there are limits on its discretion to do nothing in the face of conflict, crises and atrocities. I refer to this as a “responsibility to act.” This responsibility isn’t legally enforceable, but political pressure on the P5 and E10 can encourage them to act. In a multipolar world, where even the most powerful states need allies and supporters, political pressure to live up to that responsibility can help the Council overcome its legitimacy crisis.

What role do you see for younger professionals and emerging global leaders in advocating for these reforms at the UN?

Younger professionals and emerging leaders often view proposals for Security Council reform with skepticism—and understandably so, given the decades of discussion with limited progress. It can be tempting to believe Thucydides’ dictum, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Casting a critical eye on the prospects for reform is warranted. 

However, skepticism and critical analysis shouldn’t slip into cynicism and fatalism. There is room for thoughtful analysis and creative diplomacy, even when it comes to achieving something as difficult as Council reform. It won’t happen overnight, but it’s far from a lost cause. One thing is for certain: if no one pushes for change, it won’t happen. So, I encourage those who hope for a more effective Security Council to turn their intellect and energy to that cause.