Do you endorse that the United Nations needs major changes in its structures and functioning? Suggest the changes for efficient improvements. (2016, 15 Marks)
The claim deserves endorsement, with one qualification. The UN built for 51 states in 1945 now serves 193 in a world of shifted power and threats its Charter never named. But “major change” covers two different things: structural change, which needs a Charter amendment under Article 108, and change in functioning, which does not. Both are needed; only the second is within reach.
Why major change is needed
- Frozen structure: the permanent membership is unchanged since 1945, and the Charter has been amended only three times, last in 1973.
- Dead text: the enemy-state clauses (Articles 53, 77, 107), which the Assembly resolved to delete in 1995, are still there; the Trusteeship Council has had no work since Palau’s independence in 1994.
- Faltering performance: the Council is deadlocked on Ukraine and Gaza and adopted only 44 resolutions in 2025, the fewest since 1991.
- Financial fragility: dependence on a few funders has produced a 2026 regular budget of only US$3.45 billion and about 2,900 posts abolished.
- Bypass: the G20, BRICS and minilateral groups take decisions the UN cannot, eroding the legitimacy that Ian Hurd sees as the Council’s distinctive asset.
Suggested changes
| Area | Change | Amendment needed? |
|---|---|---|
| Security Council | Enlarge to the low-to-mid 20s with a permanent African presence; longer-term renewable seats as a bridge | Yes |
| The veto | Restraint in mass-atrocity cases (ACT Code of Conduct); Assembly debate after every veto (resolution 76/262) | No |
| Charter | Delete enemy-state clauses; turn the Trusteeship Council into a guardian of the global commons | Yes |
| General Assembly | Trim the agenda; give the President a budgeted office | No |
| Secretariat | A single seven-year term for the Secretary-General; open selection beyond private straw polls | No |
| Finance | More assessed and core funding; a larger Working Capital Fund; retain unspent balances | No |
| Peace operations | Realistic mandates; consultation with troop contributors such as India; funding for AU-led missions (resolution 2719) | No |
Three would bring the largest efficiency gains:
- Mandate review under UN80 (resolution 80/251, March 2026), retiring obsolete and duplicated tasks.
- Predictable money: the WHO’s move to raise assessed contributions to half its base budget by 2030–31 is the model.
- Shared penholding, so elected members, not only three permanent members, draft Council texts.
The realist caution
John J. Mearsheimer warns that institutions cannot rise above the power behind them; Thomas G. Weiss (“The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform”, 2003) argued that changing the Council’s membership is improbable and that its performance turns on great-power agreement, not size. Both point the same way: functional reforms first, because they need no permanent-member ratification. India’s NORMS agenda on the Council in 2021–22 (a New Orientation for a Reformed Multilateral System) answers that structure cannot wait forever; the negotiations were rolled over yet again in July 2026.
Conclusion
The UN needs major change, but efficiency and legitimacy come from different reforms. Functional changes can make it work better now; only structural change can make it accepted as speaking for today’s world, without which efficiency will not stop states going elsewhere.