In conclusion, two major shortcomings of the Council are mentioned above, namely, lack of representativeness and lack of efficiency.
Why is it so controversial to reform the UNSC?.
Although most countries have been in concordance that the UNSC reform is necessary and urgent (Williams, 2006), there are fierce controversies over the detailed plans. Some proposals feature expansion of the size, drawing lesson from the 1963 reform. The main argument supporting these proposals is adding more countries can regain the representativeness of the Council. However, the expansion will probably cause an unwieldy bureaucracy. Specifically, adding non-permanent members increases the majority of voters and thus, to a certain extent, inhibits the decision-making process. Adding permanent members might meet more obstacles as both permission from five permanent members (P5) and consensus of new membership seem unattainable (Patrick, 2014). Other proposals demand to alter the voting procedure. Foregrounding the efficiency of the UNSC, some argue that the reform should rescind the veto power. They believe the P5 will consider the global interests and concede in individual ones. However, available information has presented little evidence of this kind of sacrifice (Luck, 2006).
Since the reform is troublesome, it has been proposed to dismantle the Council and find other ways out. For instance, Hakimi (2007) examines a legal security system without the UNSC authorization in Cuba, Grenada, Liberia and Kosovo. Some perceive the Iraq War as a historical watershed when the United States ignored the UNSC and launched the war and think that the Council has become a "paper tiger" or a "talking show" and therefore worthless. Admittedly, the Council has many weaknesses and limitations. However, its strengths should be recognized as well. Hassler (2013) points out that the world will be even worse without a collective security system.
