Abstract
Since the inception of the United Nations (UN), the Security Council membership has been a contentious issue. It is mainly so for two reasons. Firstly, the primary task of maintaining international peace and security lies with the Security Council under the UN Charter. Thus, having prohibited the use of force in general, the Charter authorizes the use of force and other forms of measures against any State for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security under chapter seven of the UN Charter. Secondly, any decisions taken under chapter seven by the Security Council are binding on all the UN member States. The permanent five (P5), China, France, Russia, UK and USA, also enjoy veto power, one of the most controversial aspects of the UN system, which requires concurrent vote of all permanent members on all except procedural matters. For this reason, the Security Council is considered as an undemocratic institution vested with the significant function of maintaining international peace and security, where P5 States can prevent any substantive decision being taken with their negative vote. Thus, there has been discussion to reform the Security Council and bring new members into it to make it more representative and transparent. There have been several proposals for reforming it. India is one of the prominent contenders for the permanent membership along with countries like Brazil, Germany and Japan. Some of the arguments in favour of India’s case are that it is the largest democracy in the world, with a sizable geographical area and population and also it is a growing economy. This chapter attempts to critically evaluate India’s position in relation to the UN Security Council reform.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Luck (2010), p. 81.
- 2.
In 1960 the UN membership was 99 States. In 1965 it was 117, and in 1970 it went up to 127.
- 3.
According to Article 108 of the United Nations Charter, the Charter can be amended by a General Assembly decision approved by two thirds of General Assembly membership and ratified by two thirds of Member States, including the permanent members of the Security Council. Changing the composition of the Security Council involves amending the Charter; therefore, Article 108 applies to the issue of reforming the Security Council membership.
- 4.
UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on 17 December 1963 making provisions for amending the United Nations Charter in order to increase non-permanent membership of the Security Council to fifteen member states. UN Doc. A/RES/1991 (XVIII), 17 December 1963.
- 5.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377(V) of 3 November 1950. 52 States were in favour, five against and two abstentions. India along with Argentina abstained.
- 6.
Luck (2010), p. 63.
- 7.
Several resolutions were adopted on the “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” since 1992. See, UNGAR 47/62 (11 December 1992); UNGAR 48/26 (3 December 1993); UNGAR 53/30 (23 November 1998); UNGAR A/Res/60/1 (2005).
- 8.
See comments by Mr. Sumah on behalf of State members of the African Union. UN Doc A/71/PV.42 (7 November 2016).
- 9.
‘Framework Document: Inputs submitted by the Committee of Ten African States on UN Security Council Reform on behalf of the African Union Members States’ (22 April 2015) For compilation of the positions of different States on UN Security Council reform, visit- <https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 10.
Ibid, at p. 1.
- 11.
Ibid, at p. 3.
- 12.
Ibid, at p. 1.
- 13.
‘Response to Framework Paper on the Question of Security Council Reform on behalf of the Arab Group’ (1 May 2015) <http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/69/pdf/letters/050515_Security%20Council%20Reform%20-%20Framework%20Document%20%20additional%20submissions.pdf> accessed on 04th March 2018.
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
‘Letter by Sebastiano Cardi on behalf of Uniting for Consensus Group’ (1 May 2015) <http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/69/pdf/letters/050515_Security%20Council%20Reform%20-%20Framework%20Document%20%20additional%20submissions.pdf> accessed on 04th March 2018.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
‘L.69 Group Inputs on Framework Document regarding Security Council Reform’ (2015) <https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 19.
Ibid.
- 20.
‘Framework Document: G-4 Inputs’ (2015) <https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 21.
Ibid.
- 22.
Ibid.
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
‘Framework Document: France’ (2015) <https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
‘Framework Document: The United Kingdom’ (2015).
<https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 28.
Ibid.
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
‘Letter by Ambassador Samantha Power on behalf of the United States of America’ (16 April 2015)
<https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 31.
Ibid.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
‘Position of China on the Security Council Reform’ (2015)
<https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 34.
‘Russia’s Letter on Security Council Reform’ (2015)
<https://www.pminewyork.org/pdf/PGA_Letter_Annexes.pdf> accessed 29 October 2017.
- 35.
India was a non-permanent member of the Security Council during 1950–1951, 1967–1968, 1972–1973, 1977–1978, 1984–1985, 1991–1992, and 2011–2012.
- 36.
It is though an irony that it is the UN Charter which proclaims the ‘principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members’, it is the same Charter which enshrines the undemocratic nature of the membership of the UN Security Council. Article 2 of the UN Charter states that the ‘Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of its entire Members’.
- 37.
Russell (1958), p. 648.
- 38.
Statement by Mr. Ramaswamy Mudaliar in the 14th Plenary Meeting of the 1st session of UN General Assembly (18th January 1946). <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/80686lms1.pdf> accessed on 30 September 2017.
- 39.
Statement at the 85th Plenary Meeting of the 2nd session of the UN General Assembly (19th September 1947) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/64080lms2.pdf> accessed on 30 September 2017.
- 40.
Statement at the 611th Plenary Meeting of the 11th session of the UN General Assembly (6th December 1956) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/57059lms10.pdf> accessed on 30 September 2017.
- 41.
Statement at the 448th Plenary Meeting of the 8th session of the UN General Assembly (28th September 1953) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/73877lms8.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017.
- 42.
Statement by Mr. V K Krishna Menon at the 8th session of the United Nations General Assembly (28th September 1953) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/73877lms8.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017. Quoting B N Rau, Mr Menon said that: “I speak with great diffidence, but the subject is so important that I cannot refrain from making a suggestion or two. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France all are present here.”-that was in Paris-“Could they not meet and discuss or rediscuss at least the most outstanding matters of disagreement between them?”
- 43.
Statement by the Prime Minister of India at the 15th session of the UN General Assembly (3rd October 1960) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/25273lms15.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Ibid.
- 46.
Such was the idealism of the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru that, according to a later revelation, when in 1950, America offered India the Chinese permanent seat in the UN Security Council, Jawaharlal Nehru discarded the idea and suggested that China had the legitimate claim for the seat. Mahesh Vijapurkar (2004)
- 47.
UN Doc S/PV.987 (18th December 1961), para 40.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
- 50.
These States included Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Guyana, India, Maldives, Nepal, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. See, UN Doc A/34/246 (1979).
- 51.
UN Doc A/34/246 (14 November 1979).
- 52.
UN Doc A/34/L.57 and Add.l.
- 53.
See, the discussion during the 104th Plenary Meeting of the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly, paras. 325–328.
- 54.
See, statement made during 103rd Plenary Meeting of the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly, paras. 136 and 137.
- 55.
Ibid, para. 138.
- 56.
UN Doc A/48/264 (20 July 1993), p. 47.
- 57.
UN Doc A/48/264 (20 July 1993), p. 46.
- 58.
Speech by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee at the 49th Session of the UN General Assembly, (3rd October 1994). <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/77859lms44.pdf> accessed 29th September 2017.
- 59.
Ibid. Similar concerns were expressed by the then Prime Minister of India at the 50th Anniversary of the U.N. (24th October 1995) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/43538lms46.pdf> accessed on 2 9thSeptember 2017.
- 60.
Statement by the Acting Permanent Representative of India, on 9th March 2000 on the issue of ‘Maintaining Peace and Security: Humanitarian Aspects of issues before the Security Council’ <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/40173Maintaining%20Peace%20and%20Security.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017. Also see, the statement made by Indian Representative at the 35th plenary meeting of the fifty-fifth session of the UN General Assembly [UN Doc A/55/PV.35 (17th October 2000), p. 7].
- 61.
Statement by the Prime Minister of India at the 58th session of the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2003 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/2941201.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017. Also see, Statement by the Minister of State for External Affairs, on Agenda Item 11: Report of the Security Council, Agenda Item 53: Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in Membership of the Security Council and Related Matters at the 59th Session of the UN General Assembly on 11 October 2004 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/16564ind996.pdf> accessed 29th September 2017; Address by the Prime Minister of India at the High level Plenary Meeting of the 60th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 15th September 2005 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/79079lms57.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017; Remarks by Mr. Nirupam Sen, Permanent Representative, at the Plenary Meeting under Agenda Items 117 And 120 “On the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council” and ‘Follow-Up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit’ on 21 July 2006 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/80241ind1241.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017; Statement by India's Permanent Representative, during the Open Debate of The United Nations Security Council on the Implementation of the Measures set out in the Note by the President of the Security Council [S/2006/507] on 27th August 2008 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/58993ind1441.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017.
- 62.
Intervention by India's Permanent Representative, at the informal meeting (closed) of the plenary on the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council, on 2nd March 2011 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/75808ind1832.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017.
- 63.
Statement by India's Permanent Representative at the Informal Plenary Meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on ‘Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council’ at New York on 08th May 2014 <https://www.pminewyork.org/pages.php?id=1924&search_back=%27bck%27> accessed on 29th September 2017.
- 64.
Statement by India's Permanent Representative following the adoption of Decision on UNSC Reforms at the United Nations General Assembly on 14th September 2015 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/75585pr_14sept.pdf> accessed on 29th September 2017.
- 65.
Speech by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee at the 50th Session (12th Plenary Meeting) of the UN General Assembly (29th September, 1995) <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/55796lms45.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017.
- 66.
Address by the Prime Minister of India to the 52nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 24th September 1997 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/75000lms47.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017; Also, Statement by Mr. Vajpayee at the 53rd Session of the General Assembly on 24th September 1998 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/92927lms48.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017.
- 67.
UN Doc S/PV.3954 (Resumption) (23 December 1998), p. 25.
- 68.
‘Official Records of the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (Vol. II) (15 June–17 July 1998), UN Doc A/CONF.183/13, 360-361, p. 322.
- 69.
In 2004, Indian Representative stated:
A case in point is the Council’s assuming for itself the power to set up judicial bodies. Nothing under the Charter gives it the right to set up the tribunals that it has, nor indeed can it be demonstrated that those set up have in fact contributed to the maintenance of peace and security.
[UN Doc A/55/PV.35 (17 October 2000), p. 7]. Again, in 2006, Indian Representative said that:
… perhaps the Security Council’s greatest encroachment is in the sphere of law making. Though in the Tadic case the ICTY justified its setting up in terms of Article 29 on the creation of subsidiary bodies, its judgement is untenable because the Charter has not given the Security Council any judicial functions and therefore it cannot, under Article 29, give a subsidiary body functions it does not possess.
[Remarks by the Permanent Representative at the Plenary Meeting under Agenda Items 117 and 120 ‘On the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council’ And ‘Follow-Up to the Outcome of the Millennium Summit’ on 21th July 2006 <https://www.pminewyork.org/adminpart/uploadpdf/80241ind1241.pdf> accessed on 30th September 2017].
- 70.
See, Statement by the Acting Permanent Representative at the UN Security Council Debate on ICTY/ICTR (6th June 2011); Statement Delivered by Mr. Ananth Kumar, Member of the Indian Delegation on Agenda Item 73: Report of the ICTR and ICTY at the 67th Session of the UN General Assembly (15th October 2012); and the Statement by Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, Debate on International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda and International Criminal Tribunal For Territory of Former Yugoslavia at the UN Security Council (5th December 2012).
- 71.
UNSC Res. 1970 (2011) (26th February 2011).
- 72.
UNSC, 6491st meeting (26th February 2011) UN Doc S/PV.6491, 2-3.
- 73.
See, the statement made at the 6849th meetings of the UN Security Council (17th October 2012). UN Doc S/PV.6849, 10.
- 74.
Explanation of vote by Mr. Dilip Lahiri, Head of Delegation of India, on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998)
References
Berman N (2005) Legitimacy through defiance: from Goa to Iraq. Wis Int Law J 23:93
Brecher M (1968) India and world politics: Krishna Menon’s view of the world. Oxford University Press
Luck EC (2010) A council for all seasons: the creation of the Security Council and its relevance today. In: Lowe V et al (ed) The United Nations Security Council and war: the evolution of thought and practice since 1945. Oxford University Press
Mahesh Vijapurkar M (2004) Nehru declined offer of permanent U.N. seat. The Hindu, 10 Jan 2004, http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/10/stories/2004011004021200.htm. Accessed on 30 Sept 2017
Russell RB (1958) A history of UN Nations Charter. The Brookings Institution
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd., part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burra, S., Jamil, H. (2018). A Critic and an Apologist: India’s Quest for UN Security Council Permanent Membership. In: Burra, S., Rajesh Babu, R. (eds) Locating India in the Contemporary International Legal Order. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3580-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3580-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-3578-1
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-3580-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)