Over the 75 years of its existence, the UN Security Council does not always justify the hopes placed in him after the two world wars, which (as stated in the UN Charter) in a generation “brought untold sorrow to mankind”. Nevertheless, he has made a significant contribution to the achievement of the main objectives of the UN. One of the very effective areas of his work was peacekeeping, although its jurisdiction is not expressly stipulated in the UN Charter. Such missions sometimes jokingly referred to as bodies established under “Chapter VI and a half” of the Charter (in Chapter VI referred to the role of the security Council in the Pacific settlement of international disputes.— “Kommersant”). With them, perhaps represent the greatest successes in the work of the UN, so the organization was awarded in 1988 the Nobel peace prize.The Council approached its 75th anniversary not in the best shape. According to many experts, the fact is that the composition and rules of procedure of the Council had ceased to meet (and maybe initially did not reflect) the realities of the XXI century and the problems that he brought. They believe that it’s time to carry out a radical reform of the Security Council. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the main factors that do not allow the main UN body to function properly, nothing to do with the coronavirus, nor with the position of the presidential administration of the USA of Donald trump or even the irrelevance of the rules of the formation and functioning of the Council.This means that the Security Council has become even less representative than it was originally. According to many critics, the ineffectiveness of the Security Council due to its lack of democracy and in particular the use or threat of a veto by one or more of its permanent members. Besides, why in the composition of the Board repeatedly presented with exactly those five States, and not, for example, Germany or Japan, outstripping the economic power of some permanent members, and India is the second country in the world in terms of population. Also raises questions why two of the continent in the face of Africa and South America are not represented among the chosen.The world really changed much in 75 years that have passed since the founding of the UN. Accordingly, many were in favour of urgent reform of the Security Council, including the implementation of the most radical proposals, such as the abolition of the veto and increasing the number of permanent members. But the more I think about it, the less I believe in the possibility and even the necessity of a profound transformation of the Security Council. Why?First, I assume a pragmatic and even cynical logic. In the current situation, these reforms appear to be impracticable. In the best case, which is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, they can agree to a voluntary restriction of the veto in certain cases or under certain circumstances. As for the question of inclusion in the permanent membership of new countries, such as India, Germany, Japan or Brazil, there will always be someone who will be strongly against the inclusion in the Council anyone of them. And for approval of any conversions of the Security Council is required to ensure the coincidence of votes of its permanent members.However, in addition to practical considerations there are other reasons that make you wonder about the advisability of amending the Charter of the United Nations. The reason for the ineffectiveness of the Security Council is not in its composition, the presence or absence of the veto or the rules of procedure. The presence of such faults in the UN Charter does not prevent the Security Council to effectively address the problem of rising terrorist threat, the proliferation of ethnic and religious conflicts, pandemics, cyber crime, global warming and other issues. Rather, it is about the geopolitical configuration that emerged as a result of collision of two opposite views of the world: on the one hand, the preservation of trends in the period of a unipolar world 1990-ies, on the other — taking the emerging multipolarity and the ability to manage it.Although the special status of permanent member of the Security Council may seem undemocratic, the question is, what does democracy mean in international relations? Does the rule “one state — one vote” democratic principles? In this situation the opinion of one Chinese voter is many thousand times inferior in importance to the opinion of a citizen of Nauru. Even during the cold war, which I do not feel no nostalgia, a counterbalance to the arrogance and irresponsibility of a single superpower was the influence and power of different superpower. International law and institutions, including the Security Council, handled the maintenance of international peace and security because of the existence of an appropriate balance of power.In this case, realistic two possible negative scenarios that cannot be considered mutually exclusive. In the first scenario, the Council begins to make decisions, unenforceable, and thus turns into an Advisory body. In the second scenario attempts to achieve compulsory execution of decisions by powerful States (and not only permanent members) consider an assault on their vital interests, will not only lead to the intensification of conflicts and contradictions, but also may result in armed conflict.The main reason for the ineffectiveness of the UN Security Council at the present stage Zach��udaetsya in the clash of two conflicting visions of the world. If the model of a unipolar world will prevail, the need for the veto will disappear, and the status of a permanent member of the Security Council will lose its appeal. In addition, the Security Council could lose its raison d’être. For efficiency reasons, the Imperial center can communicate its decisions directly to the authorities, as in the case of Hong Kong while it was under the control of London. Perhaps the most classified information will be provided to the members of the Alliance “Five eyes” (the Alliance which brings together intelligence Agency of the United Kingdom, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.— “B”) based feedback, although their opinion is not always to be taken into account. From the rest, will only be required strict obedience. But whether such a system to other countries, and whether they will accept her appearance? It is obvious that most of them are not.In my opinion, the only alternative to this world may become multipolar international system in which the balance of power would be regarded as indispensable conditions of world peace, despite all such inherent system flaws.When existing permanent members will stop a verbal argument at meetings of the Council and outside it, give up trying to achieve or maintain military superiority and recognize that, despite all the differences in their systems of political, economic, social, cultural and religious terms, they need to balance their interests, then they might find a way to reform the Security Council so that its membership better reflects the international community of States, XXI century and worked efficiently.Rhine mullerson, expert of the Valdai club, an honorary Professor of the Tallinn University, Professor and head, Department of international law at king’s College, London (1994-2009), first Deputy Minister of foreign Affairs of Estonia (1991-1992)
