UNSC Existing Structure
The existing structure of the UNSC comprises 15 members, including 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members. The 10 non-permanent members are elected each year for two-year terms of office. Initially, the Security Council had 11 members, with 5 permanent and 6 non-permanent members. In 1963, the General Assembly proposed an amendment to the Charter for the purpose of expanding the Council’s membership. The idea behind giving China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America permanent seats and power to veto was to ensure the constant involvement and support of the world’s major powers in maintaining world peace. The League of Nations was a failure, partly because major powers (like the US) were unwilling to fully commit. The veto was a compromise to keep powerful nations in rather than operating outside the system. These countries also had control over the countries with the strongest militaries in the world and had alliances worldwide, making them capable of stabilizing and destabilizing the world. The veto ensured that no major action could be taken against any of these powers without their approval, which helped to reduce the risk of direct conflict between them, which would have escalated into a global war.
Do these factors still exist?
Whether these factors still exist today or not is the question of the hour. This year, we are celebrating 80 years of the United Nations, and the question of whether this influence continues to exist is increasingly being asked by the developing countries and the Global South. France, for example, has lost quite a bit of influence in Africa. The Soviet Union has disintegrated into several nations, with Russia being one of its successors. The USA lacks the influence that was its prerogative in the previous decades. The UK has lost its economic as well as military power. So the question of UNSC reform has taken a sharp turn in this decade, with developing countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa lobbying for permanent seats at the UNSC. So, do these factors still exist?
The new contenders for the UNSC permanent seat
1) India:
The world’s largest populated country, with more than 1.4 billion voices, and the world’s largest diplomacy is one of the major contenders for a permanent seat in the UNSC. India has witnessed significant economic growth post-1992 liberalization. Its share in the global economy has doubled, from 1.6 percent in 2000 to 3.5-3.7 percent in 2025, making India the world’s fourth-largest economy. Economists project India could reach 4-5 percent of global GDP by 2030. (World Bank)
Apart from the economy, India plays a paramount role in UN peacekeeping. According to a May 2025 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India ranks third globally with 5,211 military personnel deployed. Nepal leads with 5,908 personnel, followed by Bangladesh with 5,482. (UN peacekeeping) India remains a key contributor to UN peacekeeping forces in Africa. Despite the major role in peacekeeping, India’s role has been largely limited to maintaining peace, but not mediating it. India’s influence in global peace efforts is very limited to regional players, yet with the emergence of new anti-India leadership in the region, its regional influence is still in question.
India, since its formation, has stuck to the Non-Alignment Movement, which initially brought it credibility and support from across the globe, but the rising domestic nationalism and appeasement politics have been influencing its foreign policy. India has not given any substantial statement on Ukraine and Palestine issues, nor has it played any regional role in the Cambodia-Thailand conflict. Therefore, India should still rethink its foreign policy and its place on the geopolitical stage.
2) Brazil
Brazil is the 7th largest country in the world, population-wise, and has a population of 215 million people (estimated) and one of the largest democracies. It is one of the key contenders for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council alongside India. Economically, Brazil is the largest economy in Latin America and is among the top 10 in the world. Its nominal GDP was approximately US$2.33 trillion (2024/2025), putting Brazil around 10th globally in nominal terms.
Historically, Brazil has made significant contributions to UN peacekeeping, but its contribution has declined sharply in recent years. Its engagement has been visible in Latin America and Africa and has been focused on stabilization, logistics, and operational support rather than conflict mediation or political resolution. While its leadership in Haiti spoke volumes to its potential for regional operations, Brazil’s influence in wider global peace negotiations is dwarfed by the greater military powers of the world and/or the permanent UNSC members. Despite its diplomatic ambitions and intermittent bids for a permanent seat, in the interim, Brazil’s peacekeeping role reflects the modest exercise of strategic presence, limited more to humanitarian and operational assistance than decisive conflict resolution.
Since its emergence as a regional power, Brazil has pursued a foreign policy based on strategic autonomy rather than formal alignment and is therefore not a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. While this approach allowed it initially to balance its relations with the major powers, the approach to foreign policy has tended to reproduce the political changes that have occurred within the domestic sphere, swinging between a pragmatic diplomacy and an ideological stance. Its reaction to conflicts like Ukraine and Palestine has seen it, in most cases, merely call for dialogue and ceasefire without going for any kind of tough, reactive mediation. Although President Lula has spoken of an interest in peace initiatives, this has not turned into any concrete geopolitical action. Brazil’s regional projection also remains, for the most part, confined to South America and isolated from its immediate neighborhood. Consequently, it is constrained in its ambition to be recognized as a global diplomatic power by an inconsistent strategic direction.
3) South Africa
South Africa, although not among the most populous nations, remains one of Africa’s most influential states and an important voice in global diplomacy, often advocating UNSC reform and permanent African representation. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, it has integrated into the global economy but continues to face structural challenges. Its contribution to global GDP remains modest at around 0.4-0.6 percent, and despite being Africa’s most industrialized economy, inconsistent growth has limited its global economic influence.
South Africa also maintains a visible role in UN peacekeeping, particularly within Africa, contributing troops to missions in the DRC, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Its focus has largely remained on regional stability rather than global peace mediation. Despite this regional presence, its overall effectiveness in shaping global peace outcomes is weakened and frequently constrained by domestic political and economic instability.
Historically aligned with the Non-Aligned Movement and Global South solidarity, South Africa has drawn on its anti-apartheid legacy to project diplomatic credibility. However, its ambivalent position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and strong stance on Palestine have raised questions regarding the consistency of its foreign policy. If South Africa seeks to move beyond symbolic influence, it must re-evaluate its geopolitical orientation in order to establish itself as a truly decisive global actor.
Possible factors for the UNSC permanent seat
Since the formation of the UNSC, economic strength and military power have been the major factors for permanent membership, and this is what India, Brazil, and South Africa are opposing. So what could be the new factors to decide on UNSC permanency? One of the other factors could be sustainability and fulfillment of SDGs. With climate change being the major challenge for the world, these would make countries work to accept the targets. Other factors could be a strong balance sheet, diversified global actions, and respect and support for international institutions. Since the start of the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel-Palestine conflict, there have been ICC arrest warrants issued for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, but many countries have refused to take action on their legal obligations, letting the alleged war criminals escape the law. This is a clear reflection of the decline in the power of international institutions and selective application of international law. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement under Donald Trump and the tendency of his administration to overrule multilateral institutions is yet further evidence of the diminishing respect for global governance frameworks. The countries that ratify all international laws and abide by them in earnest must be considered for permanent seats. Many of the current permanent members have demonstrated hostility towards other members of the UN and openly defied international law, with very little question raised over their accountability.
Possible reform suggestion
The power structure of the UNSC could evolve towards a more democratic framework through greater power-sharing with the General Assembly. The provision of “Uniting for Peace” may serve as a final mechanism to resolve issues that remain deadlocked due to the veto power of permanent members. Under such a reformed structure, any resolution passed by a special majority in the UN General Assembly, despite a veto from the P5, should be treated as a valid collective decision. The vetoing state may then choose whether to participate in the implementation of the resolution or abstain from involvement altogether, thereby respecting both collective legitimacy and national sovereignty. Such a model would balance democratic representation with political pragmatism while limiting the paralysis caused by veto dominance.
