Reforming the United Nations Security Council: An Assessment of the ‘Group of Four’ Proposal

Full Document

ADRIAN KANTILAL SHAH, considering the major proposals to reform the structure of the United Nations Security Council, concludes that the one put forward by the Group of Four (Japan, India, Brazil and Germany) is the most ideal. In addition to giving permanent seats to the aforementioned four countries, the proposal envisages two permanent seats for African states. Four additional nonpermanent seats would be created, one each for Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America.
While providing member states that have made substantial contributions in maintaining international peace and security an opportunity to continue doing so on a permanent basis, SHAH contends, the Group of Four proposal achieves the main goal of structural reform: making the Security Council more representative of today’s world.
In other words, apart from providing better representation to regions that have historically been underrepresented in the world’s top decision-making body, the proposal adds permanent seat holders. “This is important because it acts as a buffer to the power and control which is currently exercised by the Permanent Five Member States,” SHAH states. This element sets it apart from the Uniting for Consensus proposal, which focuses specifically on creating new non-permanent seats which, in effect, maintains the current 'class-system' within the Security Council.
While it can be argued that the Group of Four proposal, too, maintains the same ‘class-system’ by adding permanent members, SHAH writes, it must be viewed against its transformative potential through its recognition of Member-States that have grown economically as well as militarily as well as the need for better representation to regions such as Africa, Asia and Latin America in a proportionate manner.
Of the other dimensions of reform, he states, the Security Council in recent years has made progress in re-assessing and amending its working methods, thereby working toward building greater accountability and transparency. The question of the veto is more complicated. Here, too, there is growing recognition that exercise of the veto should be restricted in order to permit the Security Council to carry out its work more effectively.