Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has undergone one reform in 1965, increasing the amount of non-permanent members from 6 to 10, but there have since been many calls for reform; Some key issues raised are the categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council–General Assembly relationship.

Any reform of the Security Council would require the agreement of two-thirds of all United Nations member states and ratification by two-thirds of Member States. All permanent members of the UNSC (P5), which hold veto rights, must also agree.

Despite a common agreement amongst member states, regional groups, and academics on the need for reform, its feasibility is compromised by the difficulty of drafting a proposal that would garner the necessary support, while also avoiding a veto from any of the five permanent members. Several groups inside and outside the UN have developed many competing reform proposals.Also see letter from the Chairman

Following their victory in the Second World War, the five permanent member states—France, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China—were considered the best placed to ensure world peace and stability when the UN was established in 1945. Considering the increase of UN member states from 51 states at its creation, to 193 states today, as well as the geopolitical, systematic and normative changes after decolonization and the end of the Cold War, critics judge the Security Council unrepresentative of the current world order. The group of G4 nations, which includes Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan mutually supporting one another's bids for permanent seats in UNSC, India has been supported by all current UNSC members, except China."UNSC without India unrealistic: Brown. The Economic Times."Countering China, Obama Backs India for U.N. Council". The New York Times. 8 November 2010.

The Security Council's adequacy in effectively maintaining international peace and security has often been criticized, citing the use of veto power by permanent members against resolutions which go against their national interests, but that could benefit other member states or the international community as a whole. Some examples cited to bolster this criticism are the Council's reaction to the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and to the Russo-Ukrainian war; draft resolutions on the latter conflict have been consistently vetoed by Russia.

History The composition of the Security Council was established in 1945. Since then, geopolitical realities have changed drastically, but the council has changed very little. The victors of World War II shaped the United Nations Charter in their national interests, assigning themselves the permanent seats and associated veto power, among themselves."Security Council Reform". Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 21 May 2013. Any reform of the Security Council would require an amendment to the Charter. Article 108 of the Charter states:

With the enlargement of the United Nations membership and increasing self-confidence among the new members, going hand in hand with processes of decolonization, old structures and procedures were increasingly challenged. The imbalance between the number of seats in the Security Council and the total number of member States became evident, and the only significant reform of the Security Council occurred in 1965: this included an increase in the non-permanent membership from 6 to 10 members.Weiss, Thomas G. The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform, Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2003 With Boutros Boutros-Ghali elected as Secretary-General in 1992, the reform discussions of the UN Security Council were launched again as he started his new term with the first-ever summit of the Security Council and then published "An Agenda for Peace". His motivation was to restructure the composition and arguably anachronistic procedures of the UN organ to recognize the changed world. In the twenty-first century, the mismatch between the structure of the UN Security Council and the global reality it is meant to reflect became even more glaring, so much so that demands were raised by many politicians, diplomats and scholars to reform the Council at the earliest so that it reflects the reality of the present times and not the time of its establishment. For example, Indian scholar of diplomacy Rejaul Karim Laskar argues, "for the continued existence and relevance of the UN, it is necessary to ensure that it represents as nearly as possible the reality of the power equation of the twenty-first century world".

By 1992, Japan and Germany had become the second and third-largest financial contributors to the United Nations, and started to demand a permanent seat. Also Brazil (fifth largest country in terms of territory) and India (largest country in terms of population) as the most powerful countries within their regional groups and key players within their regions saw themselves with a permanent seat. This group of four countries formed an interest group later known as the G4.

On the other hand, their regional rivals were opposed to the G4 becoming permanent members with a veto power. They favored the expansion of the non-permanent category of seats with members to be elected on a regional basis. Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and Egypt started to form an interest group, known as the "Coffee Club" and later Uniting for Consensus.

Simultaneously, the African Group started to demand two permanent seats for themselves, on the basis of historical injustices and because much of the council's agenda is concentrated in that continent. Those two seats would be permanent African seats, that would rotate between African countries chosen by the African group.Microsoft Word – FINAL C.rtf . (PDF). Retrieved 13 November 2010.

The existing permanent members, each holding the right of veto on Security Council reform, announced their positions reluctantly. The United States supported the permanent membership of Japan and India, and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United Kingdom and France essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan to permanent-member status, as well as more African countries on the council. China supported the stronger representation of developing countries, voicing support for India. Russia has also endorsed India's candidature for a permanent seat on the Security Council.

General Assembly Task Force The General Assembly Task Force on Security Council Reform has delivered a report (on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council) recommending a compromise solution for entering intergovernmental negotiations on reform.

The report builds on existing transitional/intermediary approaches to suggest a "timeline perspective". The "timeline perspective" suggests that Member States begin by identifying the negotiables to be included in short-term intergovernmental negotiations. Crucial to the "timeline perspective" is the scheduling of a mandatory review conference—a forum for discussing changes to any reforms achieved in the near-term, and for revisiting negotiables that cannot be agreed upon now.

Increasing membership

1997 Razali plan In 1997, Razali Ismail, then president of the UN General Assembly, proposed reforming the Security Council, including expanding the number of permanent members to five new countries without veto power and creating four non-permanent seats. This proposal was part of the debates on reforming the body to make it more representative and legitimate, a topic that remains under discussion to this day.ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT PROPOSES INCREASE IN SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP TO 24 BY ADDING 5 PERMANENT, 4 NON-PERMANENT MEMBERS, UN, 20 March 1997.Draft resolution presented by PGA, Razali Ismail (Malaysia). In: Handbook on Security Council Reform: 25 years of Deliberations, UN, 2018, p. 69-72. Razali's proposal was in line with the broader debate on the need to reform the Security Council to make it more representative in that global context, with Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India (the G4) seeking permanent seats. However, the 1997 proposal was not implemented, but discussions on reform continued and evolved. Other proposals, such as that of the G4, were presented over the years, also seeking to increase the representativeness of the body, especially of developing countries. But due to pressure from a group of countries led by Egypt, Mexico, Italy, and Pakistan, called the Coffee Club, Razali's project was unable to gain traction and was abandoned. The case is noteworthy because of resolution A/RES/53/30, presented in 1998 after the operation failed, when it was decided that any proposals for changes to the Security Council through resolutions would be subject to approval by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.Resolution A/RES/53/30 on the majority required for decisions on reform of the Security Council. In: Handbook on Security Council Reform: 25 years of Deliberations, UN, 2018, p. 75. The direct consequence of the resolution was that it became more difficult for a proposal to reform the Security Council to succeed.

2005 Annan plan On 21 March 2005, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as "In Larger Freedom". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred.

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B: Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members for a total of 24Karen A. Mingst and Margaret P. Karns, The United Nations in the 21st Century (United States: Westview Press, 2012), 51. seats in the council. Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24. In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it—preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit—making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel".SG statement to GA, 21 March 2005 . United Nations. (21 March 2005). Retrieved 13 November 2010.

The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit, a high-level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other UN reform-related issues.UN-NGLS Millennium Development Goals – MDG summit +5. United Nations-ngls.org (31 May 2005). Retrieved 13 November 2010.

Uniting for Consensus

On 26 July 2005, five UN member countries, Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus led by Italy, proposed to the General Assembly another project'Uniting For Consensus' Group Of States Introduces Text On Security Council Reform To General Assembly. United Nations. (26 July 2005). Retrieved 13 November 2010. that maintains five permanent members and raises the number of non-permanent members to 20.

In May 2011, 120 UN members states participated in a Uniting for Consensus meeting in Rome.

Permanent member proposals