BCPJT MUN

STUDY GUIDE
Committee: United Nations Security Council
Topic: Modernizing the Composition and Role of the P5 within the UNSC

About the Committee............................................................. 2

Note from the DAIS................................................................ 2
Introduction to the Topic...................................................... 3
Historical Background...........................................................3
Israel-Palestine Conflict................................................... 4
Russia-Ukraine Conflict....................................................4
Increase in Non-Permanent Members............................ 4
Legal Precedents, International Law................................... 4
Impacts................................................................................... 6
Political Status Quo............................................................ 6
International Diplomacy................................................... 7
Economic Significance.......................................................7
Stakeholder Analysis............................................................. 8
United States of America:.................................................. 8
French Republic..................................................................8
People’s Republic of China................................................ 8
United Kingdom................................................................. 9
Russian Federation............................................................ 9
Germany..............................................................................9
Existing Frameworks and International Actions.............. 10
Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMA)................ 11
About the Committee

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), is one of the six principal organs of the United
Nations. Its mandate is maintaining international peace and security. Being the only legally
binding committee of the United Nations, all resolutions agreed upon by the United Nations
General Assembly are voted upon by the Security Council to be made binding upon all member
states/ parties to the United Nations Charter. The Security Council consists of 15 Members, 5 of
which are permanent members, also known as the five powers, the P5, or the veto powers. These
include the People’s Republic of China, French Republic, Russian Federation, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. These countries possess
permanent seats in the Security Council, whilst also possessing the veto power. The power to
veto resolutions allows these countries to table any resolution that goes against their agenda, in
which case other votes casted on the resolution in question are negligible as long as one of the P5
decides to cast a veto on the resolution, even if it would have passed otherwise. Additionally,
there are 10 non-permanent seats for the Security Council as well, which are elected by the
General Assembly on a semi-annual basis. These countries, whilst not possessing the veto power
do still vote upon the resolutions.

Note from the DAIS

Honourable Delegates,
Assalam-o-Alaikum, hope you all are doing well. This is Abdullah Shah, and I will be your
Committee Director for UNSC at this year’s BCPJTMUN. This message has been added in the
study guide as the DAIS feels there are a few points that need to be clarified before the
committee begins. Firstly, this committee will operate under the guidelines of the Rules of
Procedure of HMUN 2023 1. Secondly, all position papers need to be submitted before the
conference at the Email address 2 mentioned below. Additionally, keeping in mind that this is a
dual delegate committee, rolling unmoderated caucuses will be a common practice. All
delegations must keep a balance between both of their delegates in case of unmoderated caucuses
and speeches, as the performance by each of them in both of these will hold weightage in
deciding awards. Lastly, the delegates should keep their drafting precise, well formatted in
accordance with the Rules of Procedure, and logical. Wishing you all the best of luck for the
MUN.
Happy MUNning,
Committee Director UNSC, Abdullah Shah.

1
HMUN 2023 Rules of Procedure
2
jalalhaidercheema7@gmail.com
Introduction to the Topic

With increasing disturbances occurring in the political status-quo, a revolutionary change in the
composition of the United Nations Security Council is inevitable. This change may be brought
about through various reforms, however they will be to address the 3 major problems
surrounding the security council, which are:

1. Feasibility of increasing non-permanent members of the Security Council;

2. Feasibility of Increasing Permanent Members of the Security Council, and if possible,
which countries to be given permanent membership;
3. Feasibility of removing any of the existing permanent members by devising a legal
loophole in international law, due to participation in political and humanitarian atrocities.

The solution to these problems lies in one policy, which is an amendment to the UN Charter. In
accordance with Article 108 3 of the UN Charter, for any amendment to the UN Charter to be
passed, The General Assembly shall pass it with at least a two-thirds majority in favor of the
amendment, after which the Security Council shall possess at least 9 votes, along with the
agreement/ abstention of all Permanent Members. Due to this provision in international law, it is
practically impossible to address the 2nd and 3rd of the 3 problems mentioned above, as due to
political uncertainty, contentions among the P5 are bound to rise in case of the addition of a
permanent member, and furthermore, in the case of the third problem, no Permanent member
will agree to their own expulsion from the Security Council, resulting in a political stalemate
whenever these problems are discussed. The problems surrounding this problem are intricate and
complex, and to fully understand the issue and also devise a solution for it, these problems need
to be completely understood.

Historical Background

The P5 have always played an extremely significant role in global politics. The reason why this
is relevant to our agenda is for the reason that the main method of these countries exercising/
opposing any policies has always been the veto power granted to them. A few relevant case
studies can be taken into account for various international conflicts.

3
Article 108, Chapter XVIII of the United Nations Charter
Israel-Palestine Conflict
One of the most important issues in this case is the Israel-Palestine Conflict. This is primarily
due to the high volume of vetoes that this issue has brought about. With one the most recent
examples being the veto of Draft Resolution S/2023/773 4, by the United States of America, it
goes to show the political stalemate that arises whenever a solution is being brought to the crisis.
Additionally, this case also showcases a repeating pattern of exploitation of the veto power by
the P5 countries, which is also a violation of Article 27 (3) of the United Nations Charter, which
calls for the abstention of all parties involved in a particular matter being voted upon by the
Security Council.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Dubbed as a “special military operation” by the Russian Federation, the case study of the
Russia-Ukraine Conflict also possesses similar elements of veto exploitation. There are several
instruments of international law that are vital to understand the conflict, and a relevant example
in this case would be the veto of Draft Resolution S/2022/155 5 by the Russian Federation, which
led to the beginning of the new “special military operation”. This is another textbook example of
the violation of Article 27 (3) of the United Nations Charter, as the Russian Federation, a direct
stakeholder in the conflict, was the party that casted the veto upon this resolution.

Increase in Non-Permanent Members

As aforementioned, the problem behind this issue revolves around the inability to exercise an
amendment to the UN Charter. The increase of non-permanent members of the Security Council
from six to ten is the only example of an amendment to the United Nations Charter being passed.
This was done through the passing of A/RES/1991 6 on December 17th, 1963 by the United
Nations General Assembly, which led to this amendment being put into action.

Legal Precedents, International Law

The first agenda in question is determining the legitimacy of both Russia, and China as
legitimate members of the UN. This revolves around a series of provisions in international law.

Firstly, in the case of the Russian Federation, from the Ukrainian standpoint Perhaps the most
creative option, which was suggested by several commentators - including Ukrainian Permanent
Representative to the UN Sergiy Kyslytsya, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul,
and political scientist Ian Hurd - is to establish that the Russian Federation is, in fact, not a

4
Resolution S/2023/773
5
Resolution S/2022/155
6
A/RES/1991
permanent member of the UN Security Council at all. The argument comes down to a literal
reading of Article 23(1) of the UN Charter 7, which provides that ‘The Republic of China,
France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security
Council.’ There is an obvious issue here: the USSR ceased to exist in December 1991, and the
Charter has not been amended to reflect its dissolution (there is also the thorny issue of the
reference to the ‘Republic of China’, but that is an entirely different matter). As Kyslytsya
argued in front of the Security Council, Russia’s ‘membership is not legitimate, as the General
Assembly never voted on its admission to the Organisation following the fall of the Soviet Union
in December 1991’ 8.

On the other hand, the issue of the Republic of China, People’s Republic of China is different,
because unlike the Succession of the Russian Federation, the succession by the People’s
Republic of China was actually legally substantiated through UNGA Resolution 2758 (XXVI) 9,
titled “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United
Nations”. However, this succession is also surrounded by controversy, due to precedence of
international law, in which case the literal phrasings of the UN Charter hold more precedence
than UNGA, or UNSC Resolutions for that matter, and the only way that this issue can be dealt
with is through an amendment to the UN Charter proposing alternate phrasing, under the
procedure enshrined under Article 108 of the UN Charter.

Moving on, the role played by Resolution 377 A (V) is also important to understand. Firstly,
Resolution 377A, also known as the Uniting for Peace 10, or Call for Peace Resolution is invoked
on issues upon which the Security Council has reached a deadlock, meaning that consensus can
not be formed among 1 or more Permanent Member. It involves the discussion of the issue upon
which UNSC has not reached a judgment, through the UNGA. The UNGA discusses the issue
and then passes its recommendations accordingly through the form of frameworks under the
mandate of this very resolution. These Frameworks need to be accepted via a ⅔ Majority by the
UNGA to be put into action. However, these Frameworks still act as only recommendations and
do not supersede the authority of the Security Council, and are only temporary in nature.
Resolution 377A also serves as a symbol for setting a precedent of action by the UNGA, in cases
when the UNSC is unable to provide definitive measures/ solutions.

The Responsibility Not To Veto (RN2V) is another initiative which has been discussed
internationally. It calls for general consensus among P5 members in case of not vetoing UNSC
Resolutions, if they are about the topics of genocide and war, provided that incriminating

7
Article 23 (1), Chapter V, of the UN Charter
8
No, Russia cannot be removed from the UN Security Council - Leiden Law Blog
9
UNGA Resolution 2578
10
Uniting For Peace
evidence has been brought forward internationally regarding the problem. The purpose of this
idea being brought forward was also to later pave a way towards devising a code of conduct
regarding the usage of the Veto Power, an initiative that has already been taken by some
countries such as the French Republic. However, due to the lack of these initiatives/ ideas being
formalized under the mandate of the UN has led to increased exploitation of the veto power,
which can be observed through the aforementioned examples.

The Liechtenstein Veto Initiative is also of great significance in the status quo.The Liechtenstein
Veto Initiative, introduced in 2020 by Liechtenstein was co-sponsored by 83 Member States,
including three permanent members of the Council: France, United Kingdom, and the United
States1. Additionally, it had 15 other authors who supported the initiative: Australia, Bulgaria,
Costa Rica, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico,
New Zealand, Qatar, Sweden, and Turkey 11. It revolves around the idea of accountability for P5
States whenever they use their veto. The mechanism that puts it into action is that whenever a
veto is cast by a P5 country, the General Assembly is convened within the next 10 days to
discuss the veto, and to hold the country accountable if the veto used seems to be exploitative in
nature. In this session, the country responsible for the veto is given the first chance to speak. The
main reason behind the lack of success of this initiative is that regardless of the fact that it
advocates for P5 Accountability, there is still no way to penalize any of the P5s for any
wrongdoings. This is because the primary venue of accountability would be the International
Court of Justice, whereas the countries that are highly recognised for their exploitation of the
veto power: USA, and Russia; both do not recognize the Permanent Jurisdiction of the ICJ in
various issues due to issues of “sovereignty infringement”. If accountability is sought within the
UNSC without a complete framework to implement Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter, then the
stakeholder party can just veto any resolution holding them accountable.

Impacts

Political Status Quo

The current political status quo in international relations may undergo significant changes with
the proposed modernization of the P5's composition and role. The P5 currently consists of the
United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom, and holds a disproportionate
amount of influence, including the power to veto important resolutions. Modernization efforts
aim to address these existing imbalances of power and create a more inclusive and representative
council that aligns with the realities of the 21st century.

The potential impact of this modernization is substantial. Firstly, by broadening the composition
of the P5 to include emerging powers, representation within the United Nations Security Council

11
Liechtenstein’s ‘Veto Initiative’
(UNSC) would be enhanced. This would bring about a greater sense of legitimacy and
credibility, as the diversity of the global community would be better reflected.

Furthermore, a more inclusive composition could lead to improved decision-making within the
UNSC. The consideration of a wider array of perspectives and interests is likely to result in more
effective and informed decisions. With different voices at the table, the potential for balanced
and comprehensive resolutions increases.

International Diplomacy
The principles to the topic of modernizing the composition and role of the P5 in international
diplomacy. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) plays a central role in addressing
global security issues. Any changes to its structure would undoubtedly have an impact on
diplomatic dynamics among member states.

One of the impacts of modernization would be strengthened cooperation. By including additional

countries in the UNSC, we would promote greater collaboration among nations. This would
encourage a multilateral approach to tackling global challenges, as more voices and perspectives
are taken into account.

Another impact would be the mitigation of tensions. With a more balanced and representative
UNSC, tensions among nations could potentially be alleviated. When a broader range of voices
participate in diplomatic efforts, it allows for a more inclusive and comprehensive
decision-making process.

Economic Significance
The modernization of the P5 has economic implications that reach beyond the political sphere.
It's important to consider the role of the G4 countries (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) and the
impact of these changes on international trade.

One significant outcome is the increasing economic influence of the G4 nations. As their
economies continue to grow, they could have a more prominent role in shaping global trade
policies. This means that their opinions and decisions would have a greater impact on the overall
state of international trade.

Furthermore, the modernization of the P5 could also lead to the development of stronger
economic ties between nations. This would open up new opportunities for member states to form
trade partnerships and benefit from increased economic cooperation.
Stakeholder Analysis

United States of America:

The US, being a permanent member of the Security Council, has used its veto power 84 times in
the UNSC, being the second most frequent user of the veto power. Around half of these have
been for the bidding of Israel, which included the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Israel’s Invasion of
Southern Lebanon, and Israel’s Capture of the Syrian Golan Heights. 12 The US has called for an
increase in permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council on various instances.
During his speech before the 2022 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on September 21,
US President Joseph R. Biden affirmed the United States’ support for increasing the number of
permanent and non-permanent representatives on the UN Security Council (UNSC). The
president mentioned, in particular, the inclusion of countries from Africa, Latin America, and the
Caribbean, in addition to “those nations [the United States has] long supported”―including
Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan, who have formed the G4 and support each other’s bid to
become permanent members. 13

French Republic
The French Republic has used its veto power the least out of all the P5 Members, having used it
only 16 times. It has not used its veto power ever since 1989, after it casted its last veto alongside
UK and USA on the resolution titled “The Situation in Panama” 14. Much like its other NATO
counterparts has also supported the G4 bid for permanent membership, They have also called for
an increase in non-permanent members of the Security Council to increase diversity and
representation of African, South American, and Asian States in the Council. They have
advocated for a code of conduct in the case of using the veto power, by placing limitations upon
it, as well as advocating for the complete implementation of Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter
which calls for the abstention of stakeholders in all international conflicts from voting.

People’s Republic of China

The People’s Republic of China, another Permanent Member of the UNSC has used its veto
power the 2nd least amount of times after France, with the number of vetoes amounting to 18.
Most of these vetoes have been exercised in the case of the Syrian War, however the most recent
one was on October 25th, 2023, on Draft Resolution S/2023/773 titled “The situation in the
Middle East, including the Palestinian question” 15. China’s stance on the permanent
expansion of the Security Council has remained neutral and ambiguous, whereas it has called for
the expansion of non-permanent membership on a few occasions. China has encouraged

12
US uses of Veto; Israel
13
Biden and the United Nations Security Council reform: true commitment or tokenism? • Stimson Center
14
UNSC Draft Resolution "The Situation In Panama"
15
UNSC Draft Resolution “The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Question”, S/2023/792
increased negotiations and multilateral talks with members of the G4 to cater to their demands of
Permanent Membership. Additionally, the representation of the PRC was only backed by the
UNGA Resolution 2758, and to properly determine the legitimacy of the PRC’s membership of
the UN, an overdue evaluation needs to be carried out whether the UNGA resolution holds
precedence in this case over the literal phrasing of the UN Charter.

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has used its veto power 29 times, however, along with France, it has not
exercised its veto power since 1989. The United Kingdom has repeatedly supported the bid of all
G4 Members, along with France, to receive permanent membership in the Security Council,
while also advocating for an increase in non-permanent seats in the UNSC. It also co-sponsored
the Liechtenstein Initiative which called for accountability of all permanent members for their
use of the veto power, in the UNGA within 10 days after the veto was executed.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation is the Permanent Member which has exercised its right to veto the
highest number of times in the Security Council, with the number amounting to 124. Ninety of
these vetoes were carried out before the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR), whilst the other
34 were carried out after the dissolution by the Russian Federation itself. Russia has also
supported Brazil and India’s bid for permanent membership in the UNSC, which are also its
fellow members of the BRICS organization, whilst also advocating for an increased
representation of Latin America, Asian, and African States. Furthermore, the stakeholdership of
the Russian Federation in the topic is prime due to the legal gray-area in which their membership
of the UNSC lies, something which is yet to be fully evaluated by the Security Council. This
inevitable evaluation is what decides the legitimacy of Russia’s membership in the UN, and may
result in a reevaluation of all resolutions vetoed by it.

Germany
Germany’s stance on the P5 Nations has varied. Germany is part of the G4 which is a group of 4
nations that have called for permanent seats on the UN Security Council. This has faced criticism
from representatives from Washington and Moscow and has also affected the relation of
Germany with the P5 nations in particular. However it is not all hostility; rather Germany has
cooperated closely with the P5 and has been part of several parties between them and played a
brokering role. In 2006, the “P5+1” 16 was formed which was composed of all P5 Nations along
with Germany to negotiate an agreement in light of Iran’s Nuclear Programme. The goal of the
P5+1 was to prevent Iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. This agreement played a significant
role in strongly harboring the relations of Germany with the P5 nations.

16
P5+1 | international group | Britannica
Existing Frameworks and International Actions

Article 23 17 and Article 24 18 of The United Nations Charter are what establish the US, UK,
Russia, China and France as the permanent members of the Security council along with giving
them the power of veto and certain responsibilities. The current framework and structure of the
UNSC has resulted in several disagreements among the member nations and the lack of unity
among the P5 themselves has hindered the ability of the Security Council to resolve several
international conflicts.

An example of International Actions to accommodate actual reformation of the Structure of the

UNSC arises from the change of Non-Permanent members from 6 to 10 through an amendment
to the UN Charter carried out through the UNGA Resolution A/RES/1991 19 on December 17th,
1963 by the United Nations General Assembly, which led to this amendment being put into
action. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 3 of this resolution, non-permanent seats would
follow a set pattern of geographic representation 20 for the purposes of equality and diversity in
the UNSC. This pattern entails the following:
Article 3 of UNGA Resolution 1991:
“3. Further decides that the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected
according to the following pattern :
(a) Five from African and Asian States;
(b) One from Eastern European States;
(c) Two from Latin American States;
(d) Two from Western European and other States.”

In the United Nations General Assembly many nations have called for a reform of the Security
Council. The most prominent being the G4 nations which consist of: Japan, Germany, Brazil and
India. The main objective of this group is to receive permanent seats within the Security Council.
Yet this has led to further disagreements amongst member nations. The G4 have received
backlash from the Uniting for Consensus 21 (UFC) which is a group specifically led by Italy and
it is against the idea of any structural changes within the Security Council. They believe that the
call of the G4 nations to receive permanent seats in the Security Council is baseless and there
must be a consensus amongst all member nations before any action is taken.

However, the UFC has formed a framework for revamping the UN Security Council. Italy,
representing the UFC Group, presented a new reform model as a solid attempt to come towards
an agreement. The document proposed the formation of a new category of seats (still temporary
17
Chapter V, “The Security Council”, UN Charter
18
Article 24, Chapter V, UN Charter
19
A/RES/1991
20
How are the non-permanent members of the Security Council selected? - Ask DAG!
21
Uniting for Consensus Movement
seats) but they would be elected for longer spans (3-5 year terms) and there would not be a
possibility for re-election immediately.

They proposed that this seat would not be given to individual member states, rather to regional
groups on a rotating basis. When it comes to the traditional seating categories, the UFC have not
called for any change. All they proposed regarding them was the induction of small and
medium-sized states who will be eligible for regular seats. The vision of the UFC on the veto
power is quite dynamic. They have suggested either the removal of the veto power or limiting
the use of the veto power to issues regarding Chapter 7 22 of the United Nations Charter.

The divisions among the member nations can be seen as China being a permanent member of
The Security Council supported certain proposals of the UFC whilst other P5 nations such as the
US and Russia vehemently oppose them. During the 59th session 23 of the United Nations
General Assembly, the UFC proposed that the number of non-permanent members be increased
from 10 to 20. The General Assembly will select a temporary member for a 2 year term and can
be immediately elected once more in accordance with the decisions of the respective regional
groups. The document was called “Reform of the Security Council”. The members and
co-sponsors of the document were as follows: Argentina, Malta, Costa Rica, San Marino,
Mexico along with Spain.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMA)

1. What changes, if any, will be made to the veto power mechanism to foster a balance
between maintaining stability and ensuring a more cooperative decision-making process?
2. Will the increase of non-permanent members in the UNSC be supported, if so, what sort
of reform will be brought about?
3. Will the demands of the G4 for permanent membership be accommodated? If yes, then to
what extent, and will the G4 countries be given veto power or not?
4. Is the membership of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China to the
United Nations legitimate under International Law?
5. What reforms, if any, will be brought forth to ensure the complete implementation of
Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter?

22
Chapter VII, “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”
(Articles 39-51), UN Charter
23
UNGA Session 59