RSS

The next decade will reveal a need for more effective global governance. A short assessment of contemporary global challenges ranging from climate change, to economic crises and nuclear proliferation reveals a dire need for global governance. The established institutional framework of international politics is further strained by the emergence of new powers, which seek admission to the established political institutions, hitherto dominated by conventional powers. Against this backdrop, the capacity of international institutions to effectively respond to global challenges should be reassessed. A critical approach is by no means new; the debate on the political imperative to structurally reform international organizations has been around for some time. Given its status as one of the most important international bodies, the United Nations should be one of the first institutions to come under scrutiny. Particular attention must be paid to the UN's most influential body, the Security Council (UNSC), which determines the position of the UN in matters related to security policy.

The widely held assumption that the UNSC's mode of operation will fail to meet future expectations is twofold. Firstly, the permanent members of the Council enjoy disproportional privileges and secondly, the power of veto reflects the post WWII balance of power distribution rather than present political realities. The latter argument gives birth to the assumption than a superficial reform of the UNSC to better capture the contemporary distribution of power would restore the UNSC's capacity to act. This is indeed convenient as the admission of additional permanent members -- and the granting of the veto vote-- would allow the current P5 to support integration and at the same time maintain all their current privileges. However, to follow up the argument, one must be convinced that the UNSC's shortcomings are the outcome of a discrepancy between the internal and the external distribution of power in the UNSC. This is not without dispute.

Indeed, there is strong evidence to suggest that it is the specific institutional attributes of the UNSC, which limit the UN's capacity to address international security problems. On the issue of nuclear non-proliferation, the fact that each one of the P5 owns nuclear arsenals and has up to this day failed to conform with the disarmament demands of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, limits the legitimacy of the UNSC to deal with the issue.The UNSC's non-proliferation is paradigmatic of a more fundamental deficit of the institution: its severe violation of the UN’s principle of the equity of states. It could be argued that the ability of the UN to adequately respond to global security challenges heavily depends on the degree of equity between the states involved. In contrast, the UNSC the General Assembly provides a fitting environment for a more democratic decision-making processes. The main procedural difference between UNSC and the General Assembly is that the latter uses simple majority vote to respond to global challenges. This institutional feature is more likely to result into political consensus, as there is a greater number of states involved and at the same time no single state can use its veto-power to challenge a majority decision.

In specific policy areas, the potential transfer of the right of the final vote from the UNSC to the General Assembly should be considered. The further strengthening of the General Assembly would abolish the elitist element that the UNSC is accused of and strengthen the idea that the higher degree of international legitimacy which the UNSC enjoys, justifies its ability to deal with and effectively respond to global challenges.

This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.