Writing in the Chinese Journal of Global Governance, BJARKE ZINCK WINTHER describes the academic debate’s historical backdrop and examines more recent contributions to the topic, thereby illustrating that research in support of structural reform of the UNSC has gradually moved from being the prevailing emphasis toward taking up a smaller share of the dialogue.
“Consequently, a discrepancy exists between the debates among UN member states, where calls for structural reform make up the majority, and the academic literature covering the topic,’ he writes in the research article ‘A Review of the Academic Debate about United Nations Security Council Reform’. “Subsequently, more research is needed to help explain this inclination.”
WINTHER maintains that his article does not propose that scholars are obliged to direct their research to fit with the interests of nation states. “However, research that covers an issue which significantly impacts global security must be attentive to the preferences of nation states.”
The arena of UN studies, expanding many fields, is closely tied to the diplomatic arena within the UN. “For this reason, scholars should be careful not to drive a wedge between the production of knowledge in academia and the application of knowledge in diplomatic circles.” This is particularly important if academics want to maintain the possibility of influencing global governance and policy creation, he adds.
“I propose that the task for UNSC reform research going forward is to explore new approaches so that the academic debate avoids becoming as gridlocked as the one among UN member states.”
WINTHER examines four types of UNSC-reform advocacy: ‘tenacious’ and ‘moderate’ advocacy each of structural reforms and working methods reforms. The answers found in both types of arguments for structural reform are constructed as normative propositions, arguing first and foremost, that principles of democracy and equality should be the central guides for how the international community approaches UNSC reform.
On the other side of the main dividing line, arguments in favor of working methods are based more on pragmatic considerations. Working methods proponents argue that the council was created to serve a function, and how that task is best fulfilled ought to be the primary guide for those discussing UNSC reform. “In short, structural reform arguments are based on calls for the council’s alignment with contemporary geopolitical realities, whereas working methods reform arguments are based on precautions against this.”
The central points from the four types of advocacy, however, are present in most if not all literature concerned with UNSC reform, the author states. That is, whether or not the structure of the UNSC aligns, or should align, with principals of equity and with the geopolitical realities of today.
Despite all the debates and rounds of negotiations in the UN, all the research, and suggestions on reform from academia, the issue remains unresolved. The proposed notion of convergence between the two lines of thinking found in academia is meant as an inspiration for the investigation of new approaches.
“Edward C. Luck was surely right,” WINTHER contends, “when he wrote that the proponents of structural reform need to do better in explaining how an expanded council would perform better, and those opposing structural reform in answering if no structural reform now, then when would the time be ripe?”
Therefore, research is needed that aligns the widespread quest for structural reform among member states with the critical observations from academia about the need to pay attention to how reform will impact the efficiency of the council, he states.
Winther, B. (2020). A Review of the Academic Debate about United Nations Security Council Reform, The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 6(1), 71-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-12340047
No comments:
Post a Comment