The United Nations Security Council was designed to concentrate responsibility for international peace in the hands of five permanent members, on the assumption that great-power unanimity was the price of enforcement. That design has become the primary source of the Council's paralysis. The veto, conceived as a safeguard, now functions as a licence for inaction whenever a permanent member's interests or those of its clients are engaged. Russia has repeatedly shielded itself and the Assad government in Syria; the United States has repeatedly blocked action on Israel and Gaza; China and Russia have jointly obstructed measures on Myanmar and elsewhere, ensuring that even documented atrocity generates no binding response. The consequence is a body that presides over the gravest crises while unable to act on them, its authority draining with each conspicuous failure. Reform has been debated for decades and delivered almost nothing. Proposals to expand permanent membership founder on the rivalries among aspirants and the reluctance of incumbents to dilute their privilege; initiatives to constrain the veto in cases of mass atrocity remain voluntary and unenforced. Meanwhile the composition of the Council, frozen in the settlement of 1945, grows steadily less representative of actual power and population, feeding a legitimacy deficit that the Global South increasingly refuses to accept. The paralysis pushes states toward alternatives, regional organizations, coalitions of the willing, informal groupings, that fragment global governance without replacing its authority. The central questions concern why an institution so widely recognized as dysfunctional proves so resistant to reform, whether the veto can be constrained without the consent of those who wield it, what the migration of security governance to other venues means for international order, and whether the Council can recover legitimacy or is destined for slow irrelevance.
Institutional Paralysis: Security Council Reform, Veto Politics, and the Crisis of Multilateralism
Type
Open Panel
Language
English
Chair
Discussants
Description
Track
Onsite Presentation Language
Same as proposal language
Panel ID
PL-4143