Seryon Lee Chonbuk National University, Korea.
567 Baekje-daero, deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do, 561-756 Korea.
Corresponding Author: email@example.com
ⓒ Copyright YIJUN Institute of International Law
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
While a broad consensus exists over the necessity of reforming the Security Council, the disagreement among the different groups of member states prevails in great part due to the enlargement and category of membership and the working methods. Such divergence in views attributed to the stalemate in the debate over the Security Council's reform. However, the recent discussion has gained momentum since the launch of the intergovernmental negotiation at the UN level. The key issues surrounding the UN Security Reform include the size of an enlarged Council, categories of membership with proper regional representation, the veto, working methods and relations with the General Assembly. It is essential not only to properly assess the content of the different proposals to bring out the most 'sensible' solution, but the attitude of the five permanent members should also be closely examined. In any case, the potential changes in the structure of the Security Council would ultimately require a unanimous decision of the 5P states. This article aims to review the historical development of the Security Council's reform debate and concentrate on the most contentious questions by analyzing the content of the relevant proposals to test the feasibility of each option.
Keywords : UN Security Council Reform, G4 Proposal, UFC Proposal, Ezulwini Consensus
The Full Text is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2011.4.2.07