Editing United Nations Security Council (section)

== Membership reform ==
{{Main|Reform of the United Nations Security Council}}
[[File:G4 Nations.svg|thumb|The [[G4 nations]]: [[Brazil]], [[Germany]], [[India]], [[Japan]]]]
[[File:Uniting for Consensus core.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[Uniting for Consensus]]: [[Italy]], [[Pakistan]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[Mexico]], [[Argentina]], [[Turkey]], [[South Korea]] and others]]

Proposals to reform the Security Council began with the conference that wrote the UN Charter and have continued to the present day. As British historian Paul Kennedy writes, "Everyone agrees that the present structure is flawed. But consensus on how to fix it remains out of reach."{{sfn|Kennedy|2006|p=76}}

There has been discussion of increasing the number of permanent members. The countries which have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. Japan and Germany, the main defeated powers in WWII, had been the UN's second- and third-largest funders, respectively, before China took over as the second largest funder in recent years, whilst Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.

Italy, another main defeated power in WWII and now the UN's sixth-largest funder, leads a movement known as [[Uniting for Consensus]] in opposition to the possible expansion of permanent seats. Core members of the group include Canada, South Korea, Spain, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina and Colombia. Their proposal is to create a new category of seats, still non-permanent, but elected for an extended duration (semi-permanent seats). 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 amongst groups eligible for regular seats. This proposal includes even the question of veto, giving a range of options that goes from abolition to limitation of the application of the veto only to Chapter VII matters.

Former UN Secretary-General [[Kofi Annan]] asked a team of advisers to come up with recommendations for reforming the United Nations by the end of 2004. One proposed measure is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (known as the [[G4 nations]]), one seat from Africa (most likely between Egypt, Nigeria or South Africa), and/or one seat from the [[Arab League]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2006-11-01-voa46/323974.html |title=UN Security Council Reform May Shadow Annan's Legacy |date=1 November 2006 |publisher=[[Voice of America]] |access-date=11 December 2011 |archive-date=3 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120203032517/http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2006-11-01-voa46.html |url-status=live}}</ref> On 21 September 2004, the G4 nations issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with two African countries. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the General Assembly (128 votes).

The permanent members, each holding the right of veto, announced their positions on Security Council reform reluctantly. The United States has unequivocally supported the permanent membership of Japan and lent its support to India and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United Kingdom and France have essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member status, as well as an increase in the presence of African countries on the Council. China has supported stronger representation of developing countries and has firmly opposed Japan's membership.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/204917 |title=US embassy cables: China reiterates 'red lines' |work=The Guardian |date=29 November 2010 |access-date=11 December 2011 |quote=[I]t would be difficult for the Chinese public to accept Japan as a permanent member of the UNSC. |archive-date=4 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131204034559/http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/204917 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2017, it was reported that the G4 nations were willing temporarily to forgo [[United Nations Security Council veto power|veto power]] if granted [[Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council|permanent UNSC seats]].<ref>{{cite web|title=India Offers To Temporarily Forgo Veto Power If Granted Permanent UNSC Seat|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/03/08/india-offers-to-temporarily-forgo-veto-power-if-granted-permanen/|work=[[HuffPost]]|access-date=9 March 2017|archive-date=8 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170308181726/http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/03/08/india-offers-to-temporarily-forgo-veto-power-if-granted-permanen/|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2017, [[US Representatives]] [[Ami Bera]] and [[Frank Pallone]] introduced a resolution (H.Res.535) in the [[US House of Representatives]] ([[115th United States Congress]]), seeking support for the elevation of [[India]]  to permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.<ref name="US Congress India UNSC">{{cite web|title=US congressmen move resolution in support of India's UN security council claim|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-congressmen-move-resolution-in-support-of-india-s-un-security-council-claim/story-EMDxUAGQjsP8PYFgcBWeFN.html|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=27 September 2017|access-date=30 September 2017|archive-date=1 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171001002149/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-congressmen-move-resolution-in-support-of-india-s-un-security-council-claim/story-EMDxUAGQjsP8PYFgcBWeFN.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Whilst discussions on expanding permanent membership to individual nations such as the G4 continue, alternative proposals have been put forward to reconsider the structure of the Security Council. The Noble World Foundation (NWF) proposes a novel approach, suggesting that UNSC membership and veto power be shifted from individual states to sovereignty-pooling organizations like the European Union (EU). This proposal aligns with the UNSC's practice of regionally-based selection of non-permanent members, aiming to improve the Council's decision-making and effectiveness. The EU serves as a primary example of such pooled sovereignty, especially following the European Court of Justice's 1964 ruling that established the precedence of EU law over national laws of its member states. The NWF advocates that regional entities like the EU could be eligible for UN membership in the Security Council, enabling a significant reform without necessitating an amendment to the UN Charter.<ref>{{cite web |title=The urgent need for UNSC reform: A path to global peace". India Post |url=https://indiapost.com/the-urgent-need-for-unsc-reform-a-path-to-global-peace/ |website=India Post |date=15 December 2023 |access-date=15 December 2023 |archive-date=21 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221065201/https://indiapost.com/the-urgent-need-for-unsc-reform-a-path-to-global-peace/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Union |first1=The European |title=The European Union: The World's Biggest Sovereignty Experiment", CFR World 101 |date=14 February 2023 |url=https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty |publisher=The European Union |access-date=21 December 2023 |archive-date=21 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231221065204/https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty |url-status=live }}</ref>