The Security Council’s Struggle for Relevance: A Day of Reform Discussion at the United Nations

The United Nations Security Council, long criticized as an outdated institution struggling to address modern conflicts, opened its doors for a rare day-long examination of its internal working methods. This annual debate, which allows the broader UN membership to scrutinize how the Council operates on their behalf, comes at a time when the organ faces unprecedented challenges to its credibility and effectiveness. The principal framework governing the Council’s operations remains Presidential Note 507, most recently revised in 2024, which outlines the agreed practices and measures meant to guide its work. Yet as members gathered in the chamber to discuss transparency, inclusivity, and efficiency, it became clear that the gap between the Council’s intended purpose and its actual performance continues to widen. Nearly sixty speakers took the floor throughout the day, representing not just the fifteen Council members but also the wider UN membership who must live with the consequences of the Council’s decisions or lack thereof.

The discussion opened with a briefing from Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Executive Director of Security Council Report, who offered a sobering assessment of where the Council stands. She acknowledged that working methods alone cannot resolve the deep political divisions among members, but insisted they are essential in helping the Council navigate these differences. Thompson highlighted several critical areas of concern, most notably the record delays in allocating chairs for subsidiary bodies, including sanctions committees and working groups. While this has historically been a problem, she noted that the delays over the past two years have been of an entirely different scale, with no agreement reached in 2025 until late May and no agreement at all thus far in the current year. This represents the longest period without agreed chairs and vice-chairs since 1979, a stunning indicator of institutional paralysis. The impasse stems from disputes over who should chair the committee established pursuant to resolution 1737, linked directly to the broader controversy over the reimposition of sanctions on Iran through the so-called “snapback” mechanism. The practical consequences are severe: working groups are not functioning, sanctions committees are not receiving briefings, and crucial accountability mechanisms are being weakened. Thompson suggested the Council consider decoupling uncontested appointments from disputed ones, implementing two-year terms for chairs, and strengthening the role of vice-chairs to prevent future paralysis.

Turning to the selection process for the next Secretary-General, Thompson addressed another area of concern. The 2016 process drew criticism for the limited transparency surrounding the informal straw polls used to gauge support for candidates. While results circulated quickly among member states, their unofficial nature created risks of misinformation and confusion. She urged the Council to consider whether official disclosure could provide greater certainty about the accuracy of these results, a suggestion that would represent a significant shift in how the Council conducts one of its most important responsibilities. Her concluding remarks captured the essence of the day’s discussion: working methods cannot resolve political differences, but they can help the Council manage those differences, preserve its ability to function, and make better use of its tools. The question looming over the entire debate was whether the Council’s members would heed this advice or continue down the path of dysfunction.

Following Thompson’s briefing, the representative of Liberia, speaking on behalf of the Council’s ten elected members, delivered a set of recommendations that reflected the frustrations of those who serve on the Council without the privilege of permanent status. He urged that Note 507 remain a living document, constantly reviewed and adapted as practice reveals operational gaps and as experience demonstrates where existing safeguards are insufficient. More specifically, he called for the Note to be updated with time-bound contingency arrangements to address the unprecedented delay in appointing subsidiary body chairs and vice-chairs. His proposal to align the tenure of appointed chairs more closely with the two-year mandate of elected members could preserve operational stability and avert paralysis in the future. On the Secretary-General selection process, he demanded that transparency guide the ongoing process, with the Council keeping the broader membership regularly informed in a structured and timely manner. His most powerful statement, however, addressed the fundamental source of the Council’s authority: “The strength of the Security Council does not rest only on the powers conferred to it by the Charter. It also rests on the confidence that Member States place in the Council to exercise those powers fairly, effectively, transparently and responsibly.” This sentiment would echo throughout the day’s proceedings.

As the Council’s permanent members took the floor, the divisions that Thompson had referenced were on full and uncomfortable display. The representative of the United Kingdom, while thanking those Council Presidents who had ensured that the most urgent committee business could continue, admitted that these efforts were no substitute for a solution to the deadlock on subsidiary body chairmanships. France’s representative was more blunt, declaring the unprecedented impasse unacceptable and stressing that the Council, as an executive organ, cannot be reduced to a mere platform for advocacy or disinformation. She also cautioned against turning the Council “into a circus by inviting outlandish briefers,” a pointed reference to recent controversies over who has been granted the floor in Council meetings. The representative of the Russian Federation expressed regret that the organ’s agenda continues to be diluted by the addition of issues that fall outside its mandate, warning that many draft resolutions are divorced from reality and carry an openly confrontational charge. China’s representative echoed similar sentiments, saying that forcing votes on controversial draft resolutions significantly undermines their weight and calling on Council members to respect one another and manage their differences properly. For her part, the representative of the United States focused on the Secretary-General selection process, taking exceptional issue with what she described as the President of the General Assembly’s overreach in issuing letters to the Council claiming the organ had acted improperly. The Permanent Five, it seemed, were more interested in defending their respective positions than in finding common ground.

Yet as the wider UN membership took the microphone, a different set of priorities emerged. The representative of Egypt called on the Council to clearly announce its timetable and working procedures and maintain regular communications with the General Assembly President and the broader UN membership. Japan’s representative also called for greater transparency, inclusivity, and predictability in selecting the next Secretary-General, noting with frustration that the process has seen very little meaningful change despite repeated calls for reform. New Zealand’s representative, speaking for the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, stressed that transparency does not weaken the Council’s role but rather strengthens the legitimacy of its recommendation to the Assembly. Germany’s representative expressed concern that when the Council is inefficient or paralyzed, it weakens faith in the United Nations as a whole. The Republic of Korea offered a creative suggestion: that the monthly Council President, alongside those of the previous and subsequent months, could lead subsidiary bodies as a “troika” when chairs remain unappointed. But Zimbabwe’s representative, noting his delegation will soon join the Council, cautioned that any discussion on this issue must be handled without prejudicing any delegation’s position and should avoid creating new precedents. Cuba’s representative expressed concern that the Council continues to adopt decisions without heeding the concerns of non-member states, while Singapore’s representative called for more meetings to be held in an open format with greater participation by concerned member states. The message from the wider membership was consistent: the Council’s working methods affect everyone, and everyone deserves a voice in how they evolve.

The debate concluded with several delegations addressing the fundamental question of the Council’s legitimacy and effectiveness in the face of grave global threats. Mexico’s representative underscored that methods of work are not a minor issue, pointing to the Council’s inability to act in the face of some of the most serious threats facing humanity today, and spotlighted the France-Mexico initiative aimed at restricting the use of the veto in situations involving mass atrocities, which has gained the support of 120 member states. Bulgaria’s representative offered a crucial reminder: although the Council’s working methods remain the prerogative of its members, the broader UN membership, on whose behalf the Council acts, has a legal and moral stake in their consistent implementation. She also addressed the definition of “specially affected” countries who can participate in Council meetings under rule 37, urging that geographical proximity to a military conflict should meet this threshold. Nigeria’s representative suggested the Council adopt defined criteria for this designation, potentially including states named in the resolution under discussion, states neighboring an active conflict, and relevant troop- and police-contributing countries. The observer for the African Union delivered perhaps the most pointed remarks, noting that many items on the Council’s agenda concern African countries and that where working methods function poorly, the cost is measured in African outcomes. He called for institutionalized African Union participation in Council meetings, arguing that a Council that hears before it decides, that shares its pen with those who hold its mandates, and that keeps its subsidiary machinery working will serve Africa better. Slovenia’s representative, recalling his delegation’s recent Council tenure, urged members to move beyond their scripts, engage frankly with one another, and focus on finding solutions. But he also acknowledged the uncomfortable truth that none of these proposals will resolve the geopolitical divisions that confront the Council. Ultimately, he concluded, Council members must reflect on their own conduct in the chamber, quoting Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho: “The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.” Whether the Council’s members will take that lesson to heart remains to be seen, but the record of this day’s debate will stand as a testament to the growing frustration with an institution that too often seems incapable of fulfilling its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security.