CEVAP:

• One of the harsh criticisms leveled against the Council is that it privileges the five permanent members (which reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II) and so fails to represent the changing nature of the international system, particularly in the post-Cold War era (Hanhimaki, 2008: 33). Therefore, the structure of the UNSC is subject to numerous calls for reform.
• Due to the veto power of the five permanent members, the UNSC is regarded as an undemocratic body (Teixeira, 2003: 12). Thanks to its veto power, any permanent member can block the decision-making process in the Council. The conflicting interests of great powers often prevent the UNSC from taking necessary measures for the maintenance of international peace and security. The impasse at the UNSC with regard to the Syrian war illustrates this point. Although hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or wounded in the Syrian conflict, the international community has failed to stop it, mainly due to Security Council deadlocks.
• The UNSC does not fairly represent the majority of UN member states, especially since the organizational membership increased from 51 to 193. Indeed, the UNSC’s 15 members form only 7.7 percent of all UN members. More importantly, the P5 countries constitutes merely 2.6 percent of the total member states. Thus, only a limited number of states involve in taking significant decisions on international peace and security.
• The UNSC also fails in terms of geographical representation of the world. Northern and European countries have been overrepresented in the Council while those from Africa, Asia, and Latin America have been underrepresented. What is worse, there is not any African or Latin American state among the P5 (Karns, Mingst, and Stiles, 2015: 149). Greater financial contributions from states other than the permanent members also lead to questioning the legitimacy of the Council (Mingst and Karns, 2012: 32).