Last week, the foreign ministry made the headlines after Malta was elected as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Such an election is indeed a historic one for Malta, as Foreign Minister Ian Borg rightly said.

The Security Council is the only UN organ that can issue binding resolutions, meaning resolutions that have to be abided by all nations and having the ultimate strength of international law. On the contrary, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and, therefore, the assembly lacks the power to bring about actual change.

While it is true that, in theory, the Security Council is very powerful, in practice, this power is rarely manifested. The main reason for this is that within the 15-strong council, five major nations have a veto (the US, Russia, China, Great Britain and France).

Given that, as a body, the UN was brought about from the remnants of the League of Nations after World War II, it was inevitable that the prevailing parties would get some sort of privileges.

The veto and the permanent member status tasked these nations with maintaining international peace and security. However, foreign policy is a policy of interests. And, therefore, the five permanent members (P5) are very much unlikely to allow the passing of resolutions which go against their interests.

As of 2022, the veto has been used more than 200 times, with Russia and the US having used north of 75 per cent of these vetoes. The bulk of these vetoes was used during the Cold War. However, the trend of using the veto has persisted even after the Cold War, with China also vetoing several decisions together with Russia. And, given this scenario, UN critics aren’t wrong when they say that multilateralism lacks teeth.

Various Security Council reforms have been proposed to ensure more representation in the council as well as the removal of the veto, which has rendered the council toothless. Certain proposals have focused on increasing membership of the council from 15 to 24 (and in other cases, 25) members.

Other proposed reforms were a little more adventurous, stating that the veto should be removed once and for all. The late professor Richard Barron called for a Security Council comprised of the 10 largest economies, the 10 largest populations and four elected members.

Under this proposal, countries that are ranked as being top economies and having one of the largest populations could even have two votes.

For the P5 to be convinced to accept such a proposal, Barron suggested giving the current permanent members an extra vote each, meaning that China and the US would get three votes in total, while France, Russia, and the UK would get two.

Some believe the Security Council should be democratised and open to all UN members- Brendan Zerafa

Other proposals were put forward, with some opining that the Security Council should be democratised and open to all UN members. In contrast, others proposed weighted voting that takes into consideration the population of states and their monetary contributions. However, none of these proposals made it through.

When speaking about potential voting reform, I would look towards the qualified majority voting (QMV) mechanism used within the council of the EU in relation to proposals by the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

Under QMV, voting must reach a qualified majority whereby 55 per cent of states in the council having at least 65 per cent of the EU’s population vote in favour.

If the council votes on matters not being proposed by the commission or high representative, a reinforced qualified majority is needed, with 72 per cent of member states having 65 per cent of the EU’s population having to vote in favour.

In the council, there also exists what is termed as a blocking minority, whereby four states having at least 35 per cent of the European population can block a commission proposal.

If QMV were indeed to be adapted to the Security Council, blocking minorities would be able to act as a replacement vis-à-vis the veto, only the balance of power this time round would be shared between all members of the Security Council and not just the P5.

 Obviously, the numbers and percentages would have to be adapted, given that the global context is different to the European one. However, in any case, I’m still confident that such a system would be more democratic than the status quo.

Naturally, there are various things to consider regarding such a proposed system, including whether the size of the Security Council needs to be increased.

However, what is sure is that such a system would remove the power of the P5 to stop certain resolutions from passing unilaterally. And this would mark a victory for those who want to see the democratisation of the Security Council.

Whether the P5 are ready to consider such ideas, however, is another matter.

Brendan Zerafa is a lawyer specialising in politics and international law. He holds an LLM in Diplomacy and International Law from Lancaster University and this article has been adapted from work submitted in pursuance of his degree.