Photo from Hartono Creative Studio on Unsplash

UNSC in the New Millennium: Still on Trackor Derailing?

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) entered the 21st century with its reputation increasingly questioned. In major crisesfrom Rwanda, Syria, and Ukraine to the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflictthe UNSC has often been paralyzed due to the use of veto power by its five permanent members (P5): the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. A mechanism originally intended as a safeguard has instead frequently been used to protect narrow national interests, rendering the UNSC unable to respond swiftly to emergencies and eroding its moral legitimacy (Chukwu & Anam, 2024). The Carlsson Report concluded that these failures were primarily caused by a lack of resources, political will, and cumbersome internal procedures (United Nations, 2000). Moreover, the consequences of inaction extended to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where protracted conflict resulted in millions of casualties (Eliasson, 2014).

Beyond the veto issue, structural stagnation has remained a persistent problem within the UNSC. Since the limited reforms of 1965, the composition of its membership has undergone no significant change, despite fundamental shifts in global dynamics. Regional representation remains starkly imbalancedAfrica with 54 states, Latin America and the Caribbean with 33, and South Asia with more than 1.5 billion people still lack permanent seats. This imbalance contrasts sharply with the dominance of the P5, most of whom are rooted in Western Europe or emerged as post-World War II superpowers. Such a structure is not only outdated and unrepresentative but also ill-suited to address contemporary geopolitical realities, including the rise of new economic powers, the growing influence of the Global South, and transnational challenges such as climate change, terrorism, and global health crises. As a result, the UNSC’s structural stagnation has become both a matter of normative legitimacy and institutional effectiveness in responding to 21st-century challenges (Cajigal et al., 2023).

The issue of reform continues to be raised by the UN Secretary-General and developing countries alike, encompassing demands for limitations on veto use, greater transparency, and expansion of membership. Yet procedural barriers remain formidable: any amendment to the Charter requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly as well as the consent of all permanent members, making substantive reforms virtually impossible (Anyalebechi, n.d.; Cajigal et al., 2023).

Despite such deadlock, the UNSC still retains a unique legal role: authorizing peacekeeping operations, imposing sanctions, and approving the use of force. In practice, however, many states have increasingly turned to alternatives such as the G20 or regional organizations, especially after the Council’s failures in the Russia–Ukraine crisis (Suardi et al., 2025). In the Syrian conflict, for instance, the UNSC repeatedly failed to act collectively as draft resolutions on mandate extensions or sanctions were vetoed by Russia and China (United Nations, 2012; Lowy Institute, 2017). As a result, while the UNSC remains formally significant, it functions more as a historical symbol than an effective decision-making center.

Photo from Gia Tu Tran on Unsplash

Does Including Pyongyang Make Sense?

The question of whether North Korea should be admitted into the UNSC is provocative, but the answer is almost certainly: impossible. Legally, any change in the Council’s structure requires an amendment to the UN Charter, demanding a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly and unanimous consent of the P5. With North Korea still under international sanctions, this possibility is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, the very legality of Pyongyang’s UN membership has been questioned by South Korean officials, although procedurally, its revocation would still require UNSC approval (The Korea Times, 2025).

Politically, the idea is even more untenable. North Korea’s long-standing nuclear and missile programs are widely regarded as global threats. Its inclusion in the Security Council would only heighten diplomatic tensions and almost certainly face a veto from other permanent members. A study by the International Peace Institute showed that UNSC interactions with North Korea have tended to reinforce Pyongyang’s defensive posture rather than resolve conflicts, suggesting that granting it permanent membership would further undermine the Council’s credibility (Albrecht, 2013).

Strategically, accommodating Pyongyang could generate dangerous consequences for global stability. If North Korea were ever granted a permanent seat, East Asia could become the world’s most nuclear-risk-prone region, sparking an arms race involving South Korea, Japan, and the United States, while simultaneously eroding the global non-proliferation regime. Recent political developments already illustrate how efforts to strengthen sanctions against North Korea have repeatedly stalled due to P5 vetoes, underscoring the futility of such a proposal (AP News, 2024). In this sense, admitting North Korea into the UNSC would not be a solution but a new problemreinforcing the perception of the Council as an institution trapped in great-power rivalries.

Overall Assessment: Still on Track?

Overall, the UNSC’s performance in the 21st century can best be described as “high dysfunction, low progress.” While it remains at the heart of the international peace architecture, its practical role has weakened due to geopolitical polarization, excessive use of veto power, and its sluggish adaptation to new realities. Numerous global crises that could have been addressed swiftly instead dragged on due to internal deadlock, highlighting how an institution designed for the post-World War II context has become outdated and unrepresentative (OxJournal, 2023). The UNSC’s moral legitimacy, once its primary strength, has been eroded to the point where many states now seek alternative pathways outside the UN framework.

The need for reform is therefore urgent. There is broad agreement on expanding membership for fairer representation, restricting veto use to prevent abuse, and enhancing transparency in decision-making. Yet the political obstacles remain overwhelmingparticularly from the P5, who are unwilling to relinquish their privilegesmaking transformative change almost impossible. Proposals such as limiting vetoes to issues of war, strengthening regional representation, or enhancing oversight by the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice have been widely discussed but remain unrealized (ResearchGate, 2024). Within this context, ideas such as granting North Korea membership are devoid of credible legal or political pathways, and would only further weaken the UNSC.

To remain relevant, the UNSC cannot simply rely on the 1945 Charter. Innovative approaches may be needed, such as establishing regional security councils under UN coordination, adopting phased reforms to restrict veto power, or empowering ad-hoc coalitions to carry out limited peacekeeping mandates. Without such breakthroughs, the UNSC risks becoming nothing more than a grand historical symboldevoid of the power to maintain international peace. Worse still, if the veto problem remains unresolved, the persistent abuse of this mechanism by major powers such as the United States and Russia in critical conflicts could further undermine the Council’s effectiveness (Ewa Direct, 2025).

References

• Albrecht, U. (2013). The UN Security Council and North Korea: Caught between sanctions and engagement. International Peace Institute. https://www.ipinst.org/2013/12/the-un-security-council-and-north-korea-caught-between-sanctions-and-engagement
• Anyalebechi, S. M. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council: Guardian of global peace or an institution in crisis? Pub Journals. https://pubjournals.com/ijdpr/article/view/132
• AP News. (2024, March 28). Russia, China block UN resolution imposing more sanctions on North Korea after latest missile tests. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/un-north-korea-russia-china-veto-2024
• Cajigal, A., dos Santos, D., et al. (2023). The United Nations Security Council in the 21st century: Evaluating its design and structure. OxJournal. https://www.oxjournal.org/the-united-nations-security-council-in-the-21st-century-evaluating-its-design-and-structure
• Chukwu, R. D., & Anam, B. E. (2024). Veto power in the United Nations Security Council: Evolving world politics and development. International Journal of Innovative Social & Political Research, 12(2). https://ijistra.com/journal/article/view/87
• Eliasson, J. (2014, April 16). Rwanda genocide: UN ashamed, says Ban, as world body reaffirms resolve to prevent such tragedies. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/04/466342
• Ewa Direct. (2025). Veto power abuse: Reforming UNSC decision-making. Ewa Direct. https://ewadirect.org/veto-power-abuse
• Lowy Institute. (2017, April 11). How the UN Security Council failed Syria. The Interpreter. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-un-security-council-failed-syria
• OxJournal. (2023). The United Nations Security Council in the 21st century. OxJournal. https://oxjournal.org/unsc-in-the-21st-century
• ResearchGate. (2024). The UNSC at a crossroad: Urgency and necessity for reform. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/unscreform
• Suardi, Z., et al. (2025). The failures of the UNSC in addressing the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Wimaya Journal. https://wimaya.upnjatim.ac.id/index.php/wimaya/article/view/162
• The Korea Times. (2025, January 15). Unification minister questions legitimacy of North Korea’s UN membership. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2025/01/103_370000.html
• United Nations. (2000, April 14). Report on Rwanda by Independent Inquiry cites lack of resources, political will, cumbersome procedures among reasons for UN failures. UN Press. https://press.un.org/en/2000/20000414.sc6843.doc.html
• United Nations. (2012, July 19). Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria as Russian Federation, China veto text backing transition plan. UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. https://press.un.org/en/2012/sc10714.doc.htm