Multi -countries have called on the reform of the United Nations Security Council for

01 Viewpoint

This year is the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. In response to the new crown pneumonia's epidemic, leaders of various countries failed to gather the New York Headquarters to commemorate the drilling of Jubilee, and switched to pre -record video speeches to exchange views on the global situation.After the United Nations established after World War II, its system has long been out of the power distribution of the current international pattern, and the veto power held by the five permanent members of the Security Council is also accused of the reason why the Security Council failed to exert efficiency.

Chinese President Xi Jinping in his speech on Monday (21st), not only called on the international community during the post -epidemic period, but also thought about the United Nations' due role.Multilateral practitioners will actively participate in the reform and construction of the global governance system to maintain the international order based on international law.

The leaders of many regional powers have also made opinions on the United Nations reform.For example, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that (the United Nations) Security Council's structure left the fate of more than 7 billion people to the five countries, neither fair nor continuous; German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Angela Merkel) It is said that when we want to make a clear decision, the security will often be blocked? We need to reform; while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is more clearly stated that if the United Nations does not comprehensively reform will face a crisis of trust.

The Security Council is the product of realistic politics

The mission of the United Nations is to write an international order for weak meat and strong food, but the structure of the Security Council is the result of the law of the jungle to some extent.The five countries of China, France, Britain, the United States, and Russia (P5) occupy the seats of permanent councils, and any member can veto the proposal alone.This system stems from the end of World War II, and several major leaders of the Allies designed the international order after the war.When the then US President Roosevelt conceived the structure of the Security Council, he insisted that the Republic of China would be included in it.Caps belt, P5's privilege status is established.Although the Security Council also has ten seats and is very rotated every two years, these members not only have no veto, nor do they have a re -election system, and their influence is far less than P5.

The P5 was a product that reflects the international pattern and realistic politics at that time. Without the support of China, Britain, USA, and Russia, even the opposition of some of them, the work of the United Nations will inevitably be hit, and decision may lack credibility.However, in the past half century, the world has not only witnessed Japan and Germany's rebirth in the ruins, and India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also become the economic engines of their regions, each with its own sphere of influence.Today, the international structure is no longer a certain two major powers. The Paris Agreement and textbooks have still maintained their work after losing the support of the United States. It can be seen that the system of the Security Council has long been disconnected and does not match the current international pattern of multilateralism.

Reform must promote multilateral cooperation

The discussion of the reform of the Security Council can be divided into the system and veto power of increasing resolution norms and the permanent members of the reform. Each approach has its limitations.The first approach is in line with the principles of international order based on the rules, but the interpretation and application of standardized norms are often more than one, and they are still the people of the members of the country.Increasing the number of seats of permanent members, it is expected that it is easier to obtain the support of P5, but it is also equivalent to increasing the difficulty and time of the decision -making process.If the permanent seats are abolished, all 15 seats are changed to the rotation system. Although it can meet the requirements of the equality of the country, it is not easy to obtain P5 support.

There may be a lot of room for reform.For example, if P5 requires two votes to oppose to veto the bill, it can increase the cause and decision -making efficiency of five major powers.Reform can also consider the vast number of votes in the 15 countries, such as the support of more than three parties, and the veto power will fail.

Regardless of the reform plan, it is necessary to get two -thirds of member states in the UN General Assembly, and to get all P5 all the first to achieve it. The difficulty cannot be underestimated.In particular, P5, as a vested interest country of the current system, naturally does not want to give up privileges.However, if the plan is not inclined to some countries, the five permanent councils reduce influence equally. It is not entirely impossible to reach a consensus.The original intention of the Security Council is to negotiate from all countries, but the reality is that the national appearance of the permanent directors is separated and rejected each other.Coupled with the original intention of the United Nations, which reflects the equal of the country, it is actually led by several major powers. It has not been able to adapt to the international multi -polar pattern today. Reform is worth promoting as soon as possible.