A Critical Review of Gould and Rablen (2017) – “Reform of the United Nations Security Council”

Gould and Rablen (2017) explore the ongoing difficulties in reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a body which is generally considered essential for world peace and security.

The UNSC has not undergone significant reform in over 20 years of negotiations, particularly when it comes to membership and decision-making procedures.

The authors evaluate the effects of different reform proposals on efficiency and democratic equity by utilising recent developments in a priori voting power theory.

They examine the possible effects on democratic representation and operational efficiency by analysing 11 existing proposals, which include membership expansion and structural modifications.

According to their research, only one solution would perform more fairly and effectively than the UNSC’s current structure – that is the proposed reform that two permanent members, rather than just one, would need to veto a proposal in order for it to be blocked.

On the other hand, several of the other proposed reforms can unintentionally make the problems they seek to solve even worse, indicating the necessity for strategic preparation and critical analysis when pursuing UNSC reform.

Quantitative vs Qualitative Methodologies

Quantitative methodologies are increasingly being used in the field of international relations.

These techniques rely on a number of explicit assumptions, many of which are also required in order to draw conclusions about causality using qualitative methods (Hug, 2018).

Gould and Rablen’s study was conducted quantitatively, which certainly offers a number of benefits.

Quantitative research allows for objectivity and precision, which in turn allows researchers to study broad trends and generalise findings. It also makes it easier to replicate the study and verify the results.

However, quantitative research in international relations is limited by both its complexity and its oversimplification.

Since such techniques rely on explicit assumptions, this type of research has causality challenges, and it often fails to consider that multiple factors can influence outcomes.

For example, when discussing voting power and decision rule, Gould and Rablen state the following:

“At present, the UNSC decision rule requires, as a necessary condition, that nine of 15 members, i.e., 60%, vote in favor of a resolution for it to pass. Although it is conceivable that this 60% threshold might be altered as part of a reform of the UNSC, the benchmark analysis is performed here under the assumption that the 60% threshold remains unchanged” (p.155).

This means that the study heavily relies on the assumption that the 60% threshold will remain as is, and if this is not the case, a good chunk of the study’s findings would be rendered null.

Furthermore, quantitative research often overlooks the importance of historical, cultural, and contextual factors. It is over-reliant on data and neglects qualitative research approaches.

Democratic Equity

In their paper, Gould and Rablen assess each proposal based on the extent to which they achieve democratic equity, or more specifically the “equalization of voting power” (p. 149).

Democratic equity, which is based on the values of justice and equality, aims to guarantee that all individuals, regardless of background, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics, have an equal say in decision-making processes.

The concept underlying the equalisation of voting power is that all people who are represented by the UN, regardless of their nationality, ought to have an equal level of power to influence decisions made by the UNSC.

This is a very ambitious goal, and if achieved, it would certainly increase the legitimacy of the Security Council as well as the acceptance of its decisions.

Although academics have long maintained that international organisations may best achieve legitimacy through strong performance, more recent research on the UN Security Council indicates that procedural fairness is just as important (Binder & Heupel, 2021).

However, considering the complex and hierarchical structures of international relations and power disparities between different countries, the feasibility of such a goal must be called into question.

It is an admirable ideal, but its practical application is challenging.

In particular, the permanent members might be very resistant to the idea of forfeiting their privileges in the name of democratic equity.

Therefore, the P-5’s position is practically untouchable because any reform must be approved by the General Assembly, which is composed of two-thirds of the UN’s members, and it must also be ratified by the permanent five themselves (UN Charter, Article 108).

It is thus not possible to envision any reform that would result in one of the current permanent members of the Security Council losing their post.

Even the inclusion of one or more permanent members with veto rights would not attract the necessary majority (Pedrazzi, 2007).

Gould and Rablen explored each reform proposal in the hypothetical scenario that they were implemented, but the authors did not give much importance to the likelihood of them being implemented in the first place.

Gould and Rablen also assess the extent to which each proposal would affect the efficiency of the voting body.

The ability to easily pass resolutions definitely aligns with the goal of democratic responsiveness, however one must also consider the potential drawbacks of putting too much emphasis on efficiency.

The excessive focus on efficiency might overlook the importance of checks and balances.

Careful consideration and debate are vital prior to voting on a bill or resolution, and these cannot be done properly with such tight pressure for efficiency.

Furthermore, efficient decision rule may favour the majority at the expense of minority voices and smaller nations.

Decisions made within harsh time constraints may not account for the nuanced and diverse perspectives of the global community.

Therefore, in emphasising efficiency, one must be wary of the trade-off being made against thoroughness.

The legitimacy of the decisions made may be compromised if the deliberative process is disregarded.

Hasty actions may result in oversights or unexpected outcomes that could have been prevented with more forethought.

Therefore, while efficient decision-making is important, the authors should be careful not to over-emphasise its vitality.

The Invasion of Ukraine

It is also worth mentioning that Gould and Rablen’s study was conducted prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and this recent development might add a number of new dimensions to the debate that were previously not considered.

The invasion has certainly exposed weaknesses in the current system, highlighting the limitations of the current UNSC structure.

Even prior to the invasion, Dorosh & Ivasechko (2018) raised issue with the fact that the Security Council was unable to take any meaningful action regarding the annexation of Crimea due to the possibility that Russia would exercise its veto power.

Currently, with the conflict having escalated to a full-scale war, there is a stronger sense of urgency to address longstanding structural issues.

There has also been a shift in alliances and coalitions, with countries reassessing their relationship with Russia in light of its aggressive behaviour.

This could potentially create an opportunity for UNSC reform advocates to build broader support for their proposals.

Conclusion

When examining the ongoing difficulties related to the reform of the United Nations Security Council, Gould and Rablen offer an investigation that surpasses a simple examination of structural changes.

Their analysis, which is based on quantitative methods, offers insightful information about the intricate interactions that exist between democratic equity and decision-making efficiency within the UNSC framework.

The idea of democratic equity – which is embodied in the goal of distributing equal voting power across member states – is at the centre of their analysis.

Though praiseworthy, this endeavour confronts significant challenges ingrained in the hierarchical dynamics of international relations.

Furthermore, the authors’ assessment of reform proposals in light of operational efficiency emphasises the careful balancing act necessary in decision-making processes.

Efficiency is good, but placing too much emphasis on it runs the risk of weakening the rigorous deliberation required to make wise decisions.

Recent geopolitical events, most notably Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, highlight the necessity of reassessing current institutions and processes for making decisions.

The invasion of Ukraine serves as a stark reminder of the UNSC’s shortcomings, as seen by the Council’s incapacity to handle the situation with effectiveness.

Ultimately, the work of Gould and Rablen highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy for UNSC reform.

References List

Binder, M. and Heupel, M. (2021) ‘The Intricacies of UN Security Council Reform’, Survival (London), 63(2), pp. 63–68.

Dorosh, L. and Ivasechko, O. (2018) ‘The UN Security Council Permanent Members’ Veto Right Reform in the Context of Conflict in Ukraine’, Central European journal of international & security studies, 12(2), p. Central European journal of international& security studies, 2018-06, Vol.12 (2).

Gould, M. and Rablen, M.D. (2017) ‘Reform of the United Nations Security Council: equity and efficiency’, Public choice, 173(1/2), pp. 145–168.

Hug, S. (2018) ‘Examples of Quantitative Data Processing in International Relations’, in Resources and Applied Methods in International Relations. Cham: Springer International Publishing (The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy), pp. 125–138.

Pedrazzi, M. (2007) ‘Italy, the USA and the reform of the UN Security Council’, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, 9(2), pp. 183–196.
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations: Article 108.