The authors of the present study share the view that the Security Council is long over due for reform. However, it is our belief that the literature is replete with proposals that reflect the preferences and interests of particular countries or groups of countries without clarifying their implications for the future of international security. The first part of the paper consists of a brief review of the origins of the concept of collective security and the current Security Council system. The second part examines the controversy surrounding decision making in the Security Council. Of particular importance is the contentious issues of permanent membership and veto power and their relationship to democratic management of Security Council operations in the post-Cold War international environment. The third part reviews the arguments for and against enlargement of the Security Council while the fourth part examines alternative models for enlargement in light of the stated concerns of UN member countries relative to representation, equitable distribution of power and fairness. Our central objective is to fill the gap in the ongoing debate on Security Council reform by critically examining the strengths and drawbacks of proposed alternatives to the existing system within a comparative frame of analysis.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||21|
|Journal||Journal of Third World Studies|
|State||Published - Jan 1 2001|