INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 130

The Difficulty of Reforming the United Nations Security Council

Ambrues Monboe Nebo Sr. (D.Scs.)

Ph.D. Student -Security Studies with an emphasis on International Security, Adjunct Faculty Department of Political

Science, University of Liberia, Liberia Department of Criminal Justice & Forensic Program African Methodist Episcopal

University, Liberia.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2024.130715

Received: 26 June 2024; Accepted: 11 July 2024; Published: 14 August 2024

Abstract: In addition to the ongoing debate surrounding the imperative need to reform the UNSC, especially on the concept of

veto power, this article offers another perspective. Using document analysis combined with triangulation of the secondary

material as the methodology, this article explored the difficulty of reforming the UNSC. It adopts the realist theory as the

framework that sees the concept of veto power as the main difficulty standing in the way of the reform despite the expressed

commitment from the five permanent members of the UNSC and other countries.

Although this article did not explicitly proffer a remedy to the problem discussed. However, how the author intellectualized and

articulated the main issue could draw attention to the ongoing debate and clamor about the need to reform the UNSC veto power.

Conclusively, this article doubts not the possibility but sees the use of veto power strategic to the interest of the U.S., China, and

Russia as the major obstacle to the reform.

Keywords: China, National Interest, Realism, Russia, United States, United Nations Security Council, Veto Power,

I. Introduction

Judging from the history of the demand and clamors to reform the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), especially the veto

power following the end of the Cold War in 1989, it is quite easy to infer the difficulties encountered despite the imperative

needs.

A lot of scholars have offered their perspectives on the difficulties. For instance, Patrick, et al, (2023) outlined a good number of

daunting challenges including “high procedural hurdles to amending the UN Charter; divergent member state positions on the

acceptable size and terms of any enlargement; disagreement over current veto provisions and their potential extension to any new

permanent members; and gnawing uncertainties over whether any plausible enlargement even if it made the council more

representative would improve its functioning”.

In a slightly similar tone, Cheng Lin (2008) indicated that despite the acknowledgment from almost all the UN members about the

necessity to reform the Security Council, no consensus has been reached among UN members, including the five permanent

members (P5) on how to adjust the Security Council’s structure, and on how to increase the number of new permanent members.

As for Lukmaan (2023), historical conflicts and rivalries among nation-states present serious hurdles. This claim is supported by

some practical examples such as how Pakistan has been a vocal opponent of India’s UNSC bid due to the long-standing Kashmir

dispute and other issues. Pakistan argues that India’s entry would disrupt regional security dynamics, making the UNSC more

contentious. China has serious objections to Japan being there in the Security Council. Italy trying to compete with Germany in

Europe for a place in the Security Council. Argentia too does not agree with the fact that Brazil should represent South America in

the UNSC as a permanent representative. Lukmaan (2023) also argued that because member states have different visions of what

a reformed UNSC should look like makes it difficult.

Without the inclination to challenge or question the veracity of the different perspectives on the difficulties advanced by the above

authors or scholars, this article seeks to add another perspective to the list of difficulties of reforming the UNSC. Precisely, it

looks at the concept of veto power used as a tool by the P5 to protect their national and geopolitical interests to be the potential

challenge.

It dives into the nitty-gritty from three segments termed as the structure of the paper. The first segment features the literature

review. Particularly, it briefly provides a conceptual analysis of veto power, and thereafter reviews some of the clamors behind the

UNSC reform with emphasis on the concept of veto power. The second segment considers the crux addresses the caption of the

article. In other words, it explains the difficulty of reforming the UNSC. Finally, the third segment concludes the article.

II. Methodological Outline and Materials

The nature of this study topic subjects it to the qualitative method with an emphasis on document analysis combined with

triangulation. According to Bowen (2009), document analysis is the process of reviewing or evaluating documents both printed

and electronic in a methodical manner. Similar to other analytical methods in qualitative research, document analysis helps the

researcher examine and interpret secondary data in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 131

critical to logical inference or conclusion (Corbin and Strauss, 2008), (Rapley, 2007). The triangulation of data which is the

materials is necessary to breed credibility that influences the quality of the study. The electronic materials were sourced from the

internet through Google search engines.

Contribution to Knowledge

By adding to the list of difficulties of reforming the UNSC with a focus on the concept of veto power, this article provides insight

useful to the discipline of international politics. It could be used for further study, especially for research gaps.

III. Literature Review

The literature review of this paper features the theoretical framework, the concept of veto power, and some of the clamors behind

the UNSC reform.

Theoretical Framework – Realism/Realist

In the candid opinion of this paper, the realist or realism is assumed to be the most appropriate framework that provides

significant insight into the caption of the article.

The realist school of thought is a significant approach to foreign policy. According to realists, states are the primary actors in the

international system, and their foreign policy is driven by a desire to safeguard their national interests and protect their

sovereignty on the global stage (Antunes and Camisão, 2018). This means that a state's political behavior in the international

system is influenced by its national interest and foreign policy. For instance, in November 2022, Russia and China vetoed a U.S.-

drafted UNSC resolution intended to strengthen sanctions on North Korea (Beech, 2022). In this example, Russia and China's

political posture or behavior was motivated by their respective national interests that resonate with their foreign policies. Both

countries embarked on the ballistic missile strategy to protect their national security interests. Similarly, it can be argued that the

U.S. motive behind the draft resolution was driven by its national security interest critical to safeguarding its sovereignty against a

perceived threat from North Korea.

The U.S. recent blocking of a backed U.N. resolution that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for

Palestine, a goal the Palestinians have long sought, and Israel has worked to prevent illustrates the U.S. national interest to protect

the interest of Israel. (Lederer, 2024).

The most recent veto exercised by China was on 22 March 2024 draft resolution on Gaza, emphasizing the imperative to uphold

international justice explains Beijing's interest in support for Gaza (Xinhua, 2024).

In summary, this article submits that the fundamental argument articulated by the realist is that states will always act according to

their best interests, which embody their foreign policies that cannot be aloof from their right to protect their sovereignty against

what it interprets as threats.

Conceptual Analysis of Veto Power

Premised that veto power occupies critical space in this paper, it is imperative to conceptualize veto power. As a concept, “veto

power” refers to the power that the five permanent members of the UNSC have which enables them to prevent the adoption of

any draft resolution presented by a nation. It can be used no matter the level of international support the resolution has gained.

The Veto is used whenever a negative vote is cast on a draft resolution by a permanent member of the United Nations and

automatically causes the resolution to fail (Patman, 2024).

The legitimacy of the veto power dates far back to the historical establishment of the UN in which the creators of the UN Charter,

conceived that China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Russian Federation, would continue to

have important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security, due to their key roles in the establishment of the UN,

they were granted the special status of permanent member States at the Security Council, along with a special voting power

known as the “right to veto”. It was agreed by the drafters, that if any one of the five permanent members cast a negative vote in

the Council, a resolution or decision would not be approved. However, if a permanent member does not fully agree with a

proposed resolution, but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it

obtains the required number of favorable votes (see, Article 27 of the UN Charter). For example, Russia and China abstained

rather than use their veto on the UNSC vote on a Libyan no-fly resolution that easily paved the way for NATO intervention that

decapitated Gaddafi’s regime in 2011 (Richburg, 2011).

In summary, it is worth noting, that Article 27 of the United Nations Organization, allows the P5 members to counter all

resolutions of the Security Council, which jeopardize their national interests and that of their allies.

Brief History of the Use of Veto Power

A literature review on the number of times the P5 members used their veto power is quite interesting as mentioned or cataloged

below.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 132

The U.S. cast the first of its 82 vetoes to date on 17 March 1970. Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other

permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel (UN Security

Council Report, 2024). The most recent was the blocking of a backed U.N. resolution that would have paved the way for full

United Nations membership for Palestine, a goal the Palestinians have long sought, and Israel has worked to prevent (Lederer,

2024).

The United Kingdom: has 32 vetoes cast, 9 times with France regarding the Suez

Canal, 14 times with the US/France regarding the Rhodesia crisis. It is interesting to know that the UK has not cast a veto since

23 December 1989 (UN Security Council Report, 2024).

France applied the veto for the first time on 26 June 1946 concerning the Spanish Question (S/PV.49) and has cast 18 vetoes cast,

9 times with the UK concerning the Suez Canal, and 9 times with the US/UK, concerning the Rhodesian crisis. (Okhovat, 2006).

For the record, France has not cast a veto since 23 December 1989 (UN Security Council Report, 2024).

Russia has the highest number of vetoes cast of 133, and mostly in the interest of its allies such as Cyprus, Balkans, Georgia,

Zimbabwe, and Syria (Iyase and Folarin, 2018). Since 2011, Russia cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. The remaining

were against two resolutions related to the conflict in Ukraine, one on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, one on

sanctions against Yemen, and one on Venezuela. Russia's most recent veto was on 28 March 2024 UNSC resolution to extend the

mandate of the panel of experts responsible for monitoring North Korea’s violations of UN sanctions (Howell, 2024)

China has about 40 veto cast, 9 times concerning Taiwan, 13 times with Russia in support of Zimbabwe/Burma, 13 times

concerning Burma/Myanmar, 2 with Russia concerning Aleppo/Syria, 4 times concerning Yugoslavia, and 6 times concerning

Guatemala (Iyase and Folarin, 2018). The most recent veto exercised by China was on 22 March 2024 draft resolution on Gaza,

emphasizing the imperative to uphold international justice (Xinhua, 2024).

Arguably, since its inception, the concept of veto power as illustrated by the number of times used to block resolutions has

become a tool to defend the P5 members' national interests, to uphold a tenet of their foreign policy, or, in some cases, to promote

a single issue of particular importance to a state.

The Nexus Between the Concept of Veto Power and Realism

Premised on the inarguable grounds that the prime focus of realism, as one of the dominant traditional theories of International

Relations that emphasizes power and national interest, especially on national security, it is easy to connect the concept of veto

power to realism. Realists ground themselves in a long tradition. The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who lived 2,000 years ago,

advised the rulers of states how to survive in an era when war had become a systematic instrument of power for the first time (the

“warring states” period). Sun Tzu argued that moral reasoning was not very useful to the state rulers of the day, faced with armed

and dangerous neighbors. He showed rulers how to use power to advance their interests and protect their survival (Tzu, 1963).

Against this backdrop, key proponents such as John Mearsheimer (2001), Hans Morgenthau (1960), and Kenneth Waltz (1979)

opine that the concept of veto power is used as a key tool for the maintenance of power and influence in international politics.

They see it as a way for major powers to ensure that their own national interests and security concerns are protected and

prioritized within international institutions, such as the UNSC. Realists believe that veto power allows powerful states such as the

P5, especially the U.S., China, and Russia to assert their dominance and prevent other countries from taking actions that may

threaten their own strategic objectives. They also recognize that veto power can lead to gridlock and inefficiency within

international organizations, but they view it as a necessary trade-off for maintaining stability and order in the international system.

Overall, realists see veto power as a reflection of the harsh realities of power politics and the pursuit of national self-interest in the

international system or order.

In summary, it makes no fundamental flaw to assert that the history of the frequencies on the number of vetoes cast including the

most recent by the U.S., China, and Russia repeatedly flagged by this paper bears attestation or affirmation of the nexus between

realism and the concept of veto power. In short, it is safer to infer that the use of veto power to protect P5 members especially, the

U.S., China, and Russia national interests explains a realist behavior or posture.

Some of The Clamors Behind the UNSC Reform

A copious literature review on the clamor to reform the UNSC, especially on the veto power reveals decades of history focusing

on the dangerous effects of the reform on the international order. It dates far back following the end of the Cold War in 1989.

Since then, many clamors or voices have been heard but to no avail. Below are some of the voices.

The African Union (AU), through the adoption of the “Ezulwini Consensus” in March 2005 has voiced its position. The

consensus called for, among other things, Africa “to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly

in the Security Council,” where the continent should have no less than two permanent seats, “with all the prerogatives and

privileges of permanent membership including the right of veto,” as well as five non-permanent seats (African Union, 2005).

Although African states maintained their opposition “in principle to the veto,” The leaders argued that “so long as it exists, and as

a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council.” The AU further

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 133

declared that it alone should be responsible for selecting Africa’s permanent and nonpermanent Security Council representatives

and would determine the criteria for that membership. In June 2005, the AU issued the Sirte Declaration, reaffirming that Africa

should be granted two permanent seats with veto and two nonpermanent seats (in addition to its current three) on a twenty-six-

member council (African Union, 2005). To this end, Many African leaders see the downplay as a “historical injustice” and have

argued that the council must be reformed to represent the world’s population better and reflect contemporary geopolitical realities

(Aydogan, 2022).

What could be considered support to reform the UNSC can be inferred from France's inclination to have advocated a voluntary

restraint on the veto on the part of the permanent members since the mid-2000s (Security Council Report, 2024). It can be

recalled that in September 2014, on the margins of the 69th session of the General Assembly, France, joined by Mexico,

organized a ministerial-level event on this issue. Then High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein made a

statement in support of the French initiative. In a summary of the event, the co-chairs called on the P5 to “voluntarily and

collectively pledge not to use the veto in case of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on a large scale.” However,

among the permanent members, only the United Kingdom (U.K.) has supported the initiative (Security Council Report, 2024).

In theory, every U.S. administration since 1990 has embraced the need for reforming Security Council membership. The Clinton

administration backed permanent seats for Germany and Japan. George W. Bush’s team narrowed the focus to Japan. President

Barack Obama thrilled India by endorsing its bid for a permanent seat during a trip there in 2010 (Bosco, 2015). Most recently,

the Biden administration through its Representative to the United Nations announced its commitment to reform including the

expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Security Council, with permanent seats for countries in Africa,

Latin America, and the Caribbean. The U.S. support for the reform stems from its recognition that the UNSC, as it is constituted

today, doesn’t represent the realities of today (United States Mission to the United Nations, 2023).

Russia has also recognized the need to reform the UNSC. Through Moscow spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Russia welcomes the

need for expanding the body with new states that have gained international influence necessary to increase the UNSC efficiency

(Teslova, 2023).

The United Kingdom (UK) positioned its support for the reform on the core principles of the UN Charter: that the Council should

represent the world whose peace and security it seeks to protect and should draw on diverse perspectives and expertise. The UK

believes that to fulfill its important mandate, the Security Council must be efficient, effective, and accountable. In the opinion of

the UK, the reform remains the only means to make the UNSC more representative of the international community it serves

(Kariuki, 2023).

China's official position has been in the affirmative as well. Through its Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Beijing supports the steady

progress of Security Council reform in the right direction, increasing the representation and voice of developing countries,

allowing more small and medium-sized countries to participate in decision-making, and enabling all member states to benefit

from the reform (Xinhua, 2024).

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been one of the most vocal advocates for restructuring the UN’s top decision-

making body, leading the charge with his mantra that “the world is bigger than five.” (Turan, 2022).

The Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) position cannot go unrecognized in this paper. Starting from the UNSC’s early

establishment, the LAC has been critical of the right of veto exercised by the Security Council's permanent members. Brazil is the

only country in Latin America that has been campaigning for a permanent seat publicly supported by France, the U.K., and

Russia. In fact, during President Obama’s visit to Brazil in 2011, he stressed that no other countries in the region matched the

hegemonic influence of Brazil (Bhoolaton, 2015). Arguably, Obama's characterization of Brazil may be used as a clutch to make

the case for Brazil to represent Latin America.

The One Million Dollar Question

A careful analysis of the clamors behind the UNSC reform, especially the concept of veto power shows that in theory or principle,

no country is opposed to the reformation of the UNSC. Interestingly, all the P5 members have welcomed the need for the reform.

However, the prolonged delay of the fruition presents the one million dollar question: despite the expressed commitment, why has

the reform remained in limbo or yet to happen? How sincere are the U.S., China, and Russia, who are now at the center stage

dictating the trajectory of international politics to the reform UNSC? To answer this question, the next segment provides insight.

The Difficulty of Reforming the UNSC

In theory, no doubt about the expressed commitment by all the P5 members to reform the UNSC, especially the veto power. But

why this expressed commitment cannot come to fruition? When will the expressed commitment be put on the table through the

UNSC formal procedure? Why is it taking so long? In the opinion of this paper, the answer lies in the concept of the veto power

that is so strategic to the national interests of the P5 members, especially the U.S., China, and Russia. For a moment, ponder on

this logic; if the veto power is used as a tool to defend the P5 members' national interests, to uphold a tenet of their foreign policy,

or, in some cases, to promote a single issue of particular importance to a state, how is it possible or likely to reform the UNSC

that may likely have implications for the U.S,, China, and Russia foreign policies? Even if France and the UK, were to introduce a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 134

draft resolution on this matter, would not Russia, China, or the U.S. employ their veto power to block that draft resolution? To

prove this assumption or claim behind the logic, it is important to categorically state that the numbers or frequencies of the use of

the veto power that blocked UNSC critical draft resolutions by the U.S., China, and Russia, especially the most recent in the

Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel and Gaza war are the manifestations of the protection of their national interest articulated in their

respective foreign policies. To make this claim empirical, citing a few excerpts of how veto power has been used as a tool to

safeguard national interest is imperative.

“In addition to vetoing the December. 8, 2023 cease-fire resolution, the U.S. vetoed an October 18, 2023, resolution calling for

“humanitarian pauses.” The latter vote happened during President Joe Biden’s trip to Israel, and the U.S. delegate on the

Security Council said the council needed to let U.S. diplomacy “play out.” The delegate expressed disappointment that the

resolution draft didn’t condone Israel’s right to self-defense” (O'Dell, 2024).

“Russia and China also vetoed an October 25, 2023, resolution backed by the U.S. The resolution demanded the immediate

release of the hostages taken by Hamas and called for “all measures” to be taken to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, including

humanitarian pauses. The Chinese representative on the council said they vetoed it because the resolution didn’t call for a cease-

fire, a sentiment Russia reflected in a cease-fire resolution it brought to the council after China and Russia vetoed the U.S.

resolution” (O'Dell, 2024).

History reminds the world that the first time the U.S. used its veto to support Israel was in September of 1972 when it vetoed a

resolution that called on Israel to cease its aggression in Lebanon. This was the second time the U.S. had ever used its Security

Council veto; the first was on a resolution regarding Southern Rhodesia. After that, the U.S. used its veto to halt resolutions

critical of Israel frequently. Between 1982 and 1990, the U.S. used its veto in support of Israel 21 times – nearly half of the U.S.’s

total vetoes in support of Israel. The vetoed resolutions criticized Israel’s aggression in Lebanon and its occupation of Palestinian

territories (Asrar and Hussein, 2023).

Besides the October 18, 2023, and the December 8, 2023, resolutions, look at other key resolutions critical to Israel blocked by

the U.

After the Great March of Return, in 2018, the UNSC drafted a resolution condemning “the use of any excessive, disproportionate

and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians” and calling for “lasting, comprehensive peace” with

“two democratic States, Israel, and Palestine”. The US vetoed the resolution, with then-US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley

saying it presented “a grossly one-sided view of what has taken place in Gaza in recent weeks” (Asrar and Hussein, 2023).

After the US recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, a draft resolution said, “actions which purport to have altered the

character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void”. It demanded

the status of Jerusalem to be determined in line with UN regulations. All the 15 UNSC members voted in favor except the US,

which vetoed it (Asrar and Hussein, 2023).

Following the second Intifada or uprising that started in 2000, a UNSC resolution expressed “grave concern at the continuation of

the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000”, condemned attacks against civilians, and called for

Israel “to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention”. Then-US

Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte said the resolution intended to “isolate politically one of the parties to the conflict

through an attempt to throw the weight of the Council behind the other party”. Twelve countries voted in favor, but the US vetoed

it (Asrar and Hussein, 2023).

The mentioning of the above excerpts and the key resolutions vetoed does not in any way or manner seek to demonize or vilify

the U.S., China, and Russia. Instead, it is mentioned to help you understand the difficulty of reforming the UNSC despite an

expressed commitment from the P5 members. More importantly, the excerpts and all the instances of UN draft resolutions vetoed

by the U.S., China, and Russia this article unpacked or flagged are enough to explain the protection of their vested national

interests regardless of what the world may think about the use of their veto power.

Conclusion

As mentioned in the introduction, the intent behind this article was not to question the veracity of the difficulties flagged by other

scholars about reforming the UNSC veto power. Instead, this article has added to the list of the difficulties or challenges standing

in the way of the reform.

Even though this article did not explicitly proffer a remedy to the problem discussed. However, how the author intellectualized

and articulated the main issue could draw attention to the ongoing debate and clamor about the need to reform the UNSC veto

power. This attention could be seen as an implied remedy.

Given the entire analysis especially on how veto power has been used as a tool to protect the national interests of the U.S., China,

and Russia, this article concludes that it would be difficult for the reform to come to fruition. In other words, this article doubts

not the possibility but sees the use of veto power strategic to the interest of the U.S., China, and Russia as the major obstacle to

the reform.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS) 
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024 
www.ijltemas.in                                                                                                                                                                  Page  135 
Disclaimer 
The  author  of  this  article  is  solely  responsible  for  the  views  expressed  herein.  The  organizations  including  the  academic 
institutions  the  author  is  attached  to  do  not  take  positions  on  the  scholarship  of  the  faculty  and  this  article  should  not  be 
interpreted or portrayed in any way as reflecting the official position of either organization.  
References 
1.  Asrar,  S.,  and  Hussein,  M.  (2023)  How  the  US  has  used  its  veto  power  at  the  UN  in  support  of  Israel 
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/how-the-us-has-used-its-veto-power-at-the-un-in-support-of-israel 
2.  Aydogan,  N.  (2022)  Africa  not  being  represented  in  UN  Security  Council  historical  injustice 
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/antalya-diplomacy-forum-2022/africa-not-being-represented-in-un-security-council-historical-
injustice/2533318 
3.  Antunes,  S.  and  Camisão,  I.  (2018)  Introducing  Realism  in  International  Relations  Theory  https://www.e-
ir.info/pdf/72860 
4.  African  Union  (2005)  The  Ezulwini  Consensus  https://old.centerforunreform.org/  sites/default/files/  Ezulwini% 
20Consensus.pdf 
5.  African  Union  (2005)  The  Sirte  Declaration  on  The  Reform  of  The  United  Nations 
https://sarpn.org/documents/d0001370/P1643-AU_Declarations_Sirte_July2005.pdf 
6.  Bowen, G., A., (2009),"Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method",  Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 
2 pp. 27 – 40 http://dx.doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 
7.  Beech, S. (2022) China and Russia veto new UN sanctions on North Korea for   first  time  since  2006 
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/26/asia/us-north-korea-united-nations-intl-hnk/index.html 
8.  Bosco, D. (2015) The United States Doesn’t Want to Reform the U.N. Security   Council 
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/29/the-united-states-doesnt-want-to-reform-the-u-n-security-council/ 
9.  Bhoolaton, Y. (2015) Brazil’s Permanent Seat on the United Nation’s Security Council https://natoassociation.ca/brazils-
permanent-seat-on-the-united-nations-security-council/ 
10.  Cheng  Lin,  W.  (2008)  Reform  of  the  UN  Security  Council:  Challenges  and  Prospects 
https://politics.ntu.edu.tw/psr/?post_type=english&p=511   
11.  Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded 
theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
12.  O'Dell,  H.  (2024)  How  the  US  has  used  its  power  in  the  UN  to  support  Israel  for  decades 
https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/how-us-has-used-its-power-un-support-israel-decades 
13.  Howell,  E.  (2024)  Russia’s  veto  on  UN  sanctions  monitoring  will  further  embolden  North  Korea 
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/04/russias-veto-un-sanctions-monitoring-will-further-embolden-north-korea 
14.  Iyase, B.N. and Folarin, S. F. (2018) A Critique of Veto Power System in the United Nations Security Council 
15.  Kariuki,  J.  (2023)  The  UK  calls  for  Security  Council  expansion:  UK  statement  at  the  UN  General  Assembly 
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-uk-calls-for-security-council-expansion-uk-statement-at-the-un-general-
assembly 
16.  Lukmaan,  I.  (2023)  Topic-  The  Need  for  Reforms  In  The  United  Nations  Security  Council  (UNSC) 
https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2023/12/22/topic-the-need-for-reforms-in-the-united-nations-security-council-unsc/ 
17.  Lederer, E. M. (2024) US vetoes widely supported resolution backing full UN   membership  for  Palestine 
https://apnews.com/article/un-vote-palestinian-membership-us-veto-8d8ad60d8576b5ab9e70d2f8bf7e2881 
18.  Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics: WW Norton &   Company. 
19.  Morgenthau, H. J. (1960). Politics among nations; the struggle for power and   peace (3d ed.). New York: Knopf. 
20.  Okhovat,  S.  (2006).  The  United  Nations  Security  Council:  its  Veto  and  its  Reforms.  Centre  for  Peace  and  conflict 
Studies, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia, http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/centres/cpacs> 
21.  Partick,  S.  et  al  (2023)  UN  Security  Council  Reform:  What  the  World  Thinks  https://carnegie-production-
assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/Patrick_et_al_UNSC_Reform_v2_1.pdf 
22.  Patman, R. (2024) Global security held hostage by UN Security Council vetoes 
23.  Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/ 
01/15/global-security-held-hostage-by-un-security-council-vetoes/ 
24.  Richburg,  K.,  (2011)  China,  after  abstaining  in  U.N.  vote,  criticizes  airstrikes  on  Gaddafi  forces 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-after-abstaining-in-un-vote-criticizes-airstrikes-on-gaddafi-
forces/2011/03/21/ABwL4M7_story.html 
25.  Security  Council  Report  (2024)  The  Veto:  UN  Security  Council  Working  Methods 
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php 
26.  Tzu, Z. (1963) The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Oxford,  
27.  Turan, R., T. (2022) Many countries agree on reforming UN Security Council,   but  how?  https://www.aa.com.tr/  en/ 
world/many-countries-agree-on-reforming-un-security-council-but-how/2693664 

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 136

28. Teslova, E. (2023) Kremlin says it supports reform of UN Security Council https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/kremlin-

says-it-supports-reform-of-un-security-council/2994742

29. United States Mission to the United Nations (2023) Remarks by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield at the UN

General Assembly Debate on UN Security Council Reform https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-

thomas-greenfield-at-the-un-general-assembly-debate-on-un-security-council-reform/

30. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Pub. Co.

31. Xinhua, (2024) Chinese FM meets co-chairs of negotiations on UNSC reform https://english.news.cn/

20240229/0c0b0838a0074e339ffe1536f65b7c47/c.html

32. Xinhua, (2024) China exercises veto power in UN Security Council to uphold international justice: envoy

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202404/09/WS6614a38ba31082fc043c0ecb.html

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue VII, July 2024

www.ijltemas.in Page 137

About the Author

Ambrues Monboe Nebo Sr. is an interdisciplinary researcher with an academic background in Sociology, Peace and Conflict

Studies with an emphasis on Humanitarian and Refugee Studies, Public Administration, Law Enforcement, and peacekeeping

operations. Currently, he is Ph.D. Student in Security Studies with an emphasis on international security at the HILL-CITY

UNIVERSITY Accredited Degree programmes in the REPUBLIC OF BENIN. Professionally, he is a senior police officer of

the Liberia National Police with 18 years of experience in Training, Administration, and Data Collection (criminal/security

intelligence)

He has authored four books namely:

1. The Politicization of the Criminal Justice System: A Liberian Perspective‟ available at

https://www.amazon.com/Politicization-Criminal-JusticeSystem-Socio-Political/dp/6139445337 and Morebooks shop.

2. The Wave of Protests Leading to Regimes Change in Africa: A Sociological Perspective available at

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9975153461

3. Introduction to Liberia Criminal Justice System: A Concise Edition available at

https://www.morebooks.de/store/us/book/introduction-toliberia-criminal-justice-system/isbn/978-620-3-04123-1

4. Liberian Society in Focus: An Introduction to Sociology available at: https://www.amazon.fr/LIBERIAN-SOCIETY-

FOCUS-INTRODUCTION-SOCIOLOGY/dp/1639024425https://libroterra.com/shop/social-science/liberian-society-in-

focus-an-introduction-to-sociology/

Also, he has authored more than a dozen of articles dealing with contemporary issues in Africa and Liberia that can be accessed

online at https://neboambrues.academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar using the author’s full names.