International Law Assignment

Lack of representation of states within the Security Council

According to the United Nations Charter ("Charter"), the Security Council of the United Nations
("Security Council") is designed to act on behalf of the entire U.N. membership. Article 24 of the
Charter provides, "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its
Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this
responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf." Despite this mandate, at the turn of the
century, the Security Council remains unrepresentative of the U.N. membership. The Charter
also provides that "the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Member States and equal rights should be afforded to nations large and small."
This fundamental principle of equality for all Member States has never been adopted in
practice. The reality is that due to the disparity in power created by the Security Council,
Member States are far from being equal. Several factors contribute to this inequality.
Numerically speaking, the current U.N. membership includes 188 Member States from every
region of the world, while there are only fifteen Member States on the Security Council. At the
time of the signing of the Charter, only eleven of the fifty-one original Member States were on
the Security Council. At its formation, therefore, the proportion of Security Council Members to
the total Member States was greater than twenty percent.
Today, it is less than eight percent. A second factor causing a lack of representation is the
continuing domination of the Security Council by its Permanent Members, a domination
collectively aided by the shared power of veto. In addition, all Security Council Members
generally act in their own self-interest. Finally, the overall working methods of the Security
Council do not allow the participation of pertinent non-Security Council members and their
methods lack transparency.
All U.N. Member States and the international community agree on the need to reform the
Security Council in order to reflect the modern world structure and to represent all Member
States.
This article will discuss the problems of the Security Council that have resulted in a lack of
representation and equality for U.N. Member States including the domination of the Security
Council, with particular attention to domination by the Security Council's Permanent Members
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that if and when the Security Council decides to
act, it must do so according to principles of equality and representation, fundamental ideals of
the United Nations.

The Security Council is one out of six organs that was established under the United Nations and
govern by the United Nations Charter. The objective of Security Council is to maintain the
international peace and security.
The Security Council is a small body that consists of a limited number of Members. There are
five permanent Members and ten non-permanent Members. The five permanent members
compromised of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Russia, France and China which
are considered as Great Powers. They are known as the Big Five. The other ten non-permanent
Members are elected on a term basis. Although the Membership is only limited to fifteen
States, it is worth noting that the decisions of the Security Council does extend to other States.
Up until now, it is the veto power enjoys by the five permanent members which has been the
central of criticism regarding the UN Charter. Though there had been amendments made in
terms of the composition of the UN Organs and voting requirements, the fact that the privilege
enjoyed by the permanent members remained unchanged is somewhat alarming.

Unclear definition of terrorism

Many experts agree that modern terrorism began with the 1968 hijacking of El Al Israel Flight
426 by a Palestinian terrorist organization. The United Nations condemned the action, but
failed to take any further action. These terrorist acts continued throughout the remainder of
the twentieth century, with no reaction from the UN; a simple condemnation was as far as they
would go.
With the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the UN finally took action, outlawing terrorism and punishing
those responsible for the attacks. Unfortunately, this applied only to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
State-funded terrorist programssuch as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Mossadwere unaffected.
Nations that support groups that are widely linked to terrorism, such as Iran, are not held
accountable specifically for these actions. To this date, the UN still does not have a clear
definition of terrorism, and they have no plans to pursue one.
International debate about the problems of defining terrorism historically centred on the
General Assembly. Yet, between 1985 and 2001, the Security Council adopted a range of
measures addressing terrorist threats to peace and security, and analysis of the incidents
involved reveals much about the Council's understanding of terrorism. After September 2001,
problems of definition became acute, since the Council adopted general legislative measures
against terrorismwith serious legal consequenceswithout defining it. The Council has
encouraged States to unilaterally define terrorism in national law, permitting wide and
divergent definitions. A non-binding Council definition of late 2004 fails to remedy the serious
difficulties caused by the lack of an operative definition in Council practice. The Council has also
regarded any act of terrorism as a threat to peace and security, regardless of its severity, or
international effects. Yet, the Council failed to define terrorism until late 2004, despite using it
as an operative legal concept with serious consequences for individuals and entities. For three

years, States could unilaterally define terrorism and assert universal jurisdiction over it
(encouraged by the Counter-Terrorism Committee), despite wide divergences in national
definitions. The Council's 2004 definition raises other problems, since it is non-binding (allowing
States to preserve unilateral definitions) and potentially conflicts with multilateral treaty
negotiations on defining terrorism.

Difficulty in enforcing member States accountability to International Law

There are numerous other examples of conflicts shaped by the military interventions of the US
or Russia: Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, Vietnam and Kosovo, to name a few. The UN
has been spectacularly unable to deal with those as well. At the heart of its failing are the
organisations power structure, and the problem of enforcing member states' accountability to
international law and the institutional failings of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The UNSC is one of the principal organs of the UN, whose powers exercised through its
Resolutions are legally binding among all UN members. It is also dominated by the Big Five
permanent members: the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. Any of these can veto a
resolution tabled in UNSC, and the councils ability to maintain peace and security therefore
depends upon their interests and not necessarily the concerns of those directly affected by
conflicts and wars.
So the US continues to veto any resolution that condemn Israels actions in Palestine, while
Russia similarly vetoes any resolution that involves intervening in Syria against its client Bashar
al-Assad.
Another problem with the UN is the ratification of subsidiary bodies such as the International
Court of Justice (ICJ), which has ramifications for the legal accountability of member
states.Chapter XIV of the UN Charter authorises the UNSC to enforce ICJ rulings, but this is still
subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council. Which means we are
back where we started if any of the Big 5 is involved. When you add USs refusal to
recognise the ICJ or the ICC, this renders those bodies meaningless.