Discuss the Composition, Powers and Functions of the Security Council.

Ans. 

Introduction:

Just as the General Assembly is like the legislature of the United Nations, the Security Council is its executive body. It is the most important and powerful organ of the UN. Under the Charter, the primary responsibility of maintaining peace and security has been entrusted to the Security Council. Articles 23 to 32 of Chapter 5 of the Charter describe the composition, functions and powers of the Security Council. The Security Council has been set up as a permanent functioning body. 

The Security Council has 15 members. USA, Russia, China, France and Britain are its permanent members. The remaining 10 members are elected by the General Assembly for a period of 2 years. 

The 10 non-permanent members have the following regional distribution:

• 5 from Asia and Africa
• 2 from Latin America  
• 2 from Western Europe
• 1 from Eastern Europe

Any member of the UN related to a dispute under consideration in the Security Council can participate in its proceedings but does not have the right to vote. 

Each member of the Security Council has the right to one vote. Except procedural matters, all other issues require an affirmative vote of 9 members including the concurring votes of the permanent members for a decision. This is the principle of great power unanimity, commonly referred to as "Veto". In practice, a permanent member not participating in voting is not considered exercise of veto. Permanent as well as non-permanent members involved in a dispute cannot participate in voting. Procedural matters can be decided by an affirmative vote of any 9 members. 

Functions and Powers of the Security Council:

• (i) As per Article 24 of the Charter, the main function of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security. So the Security Council can discuss any dispute or threat to peace and recommend solutions to resolve problems.
• (ii) The Security Council has to determine whether a threat exists or not. After such determination, the Security Council can recommend necessary action.
• (iii) The Security Council can investigate any dispute or situation which may lead to international friction.
• (iv) The Security Council can recommend peaceful settlement of disputes between nations.
• (v) If other measures prove ineffective against an aggressor, the Security Council can take military action. Under Article 43 of the Charter, all members pledge to make available their armed forces, assistance and facilities to assist in maintaining international peace and security as per special agreements and on the request of the Security Council.
• (vi) The Security Council can recommend that member states impose economic and political sanctions to prevent aggression.
• (vii) The responsibility to formulate plans to regulate armaments lies with the Security Council.
• (viii) Under Chapter 8, to resolve local disputes, the Security Council will encourage and assist regional organizations.
• (ix) The Security Council recommends admission of new members and suspension or expulsion of existing members. It also recommends appointment of the Secretary General. 

The proceedings of the Security Council are divided into two parts – 

• 1. Procedural
• 2. Substantive

Procedural matters include any decision apart from peace-security issues, admission of new members into the UN etc. Procedural matters require an affirmative vote of any 9 members, but substantive matters require the concurring votes of the 5 permanent members among the 9 votes. If any one of the 5 permanent members votes against a proposal, it is considered rejected. This voting system of the Security Council is referred to as the 'Veto' power, granted to permanent members under Article 27(3). If any permanent or non-permanent member involved in a dispute does not participate in voting, it is not considered a veto. 

The veto power granted to the five permanent members or great powers is not only contrary to the principle of equality in the UN, but has also resulted in the Security Council being unsuccessful in taking collective security action or any other kind of decision. The use of veto in the UN is based not on principles of justice but political considerations and is a direct result of the Cold War. The great powers were entrusted with the responsibility of establishing world peace in the Charter of the UN. The veto power was granted to them as a special privilege in proportion to this responsibility. This power was meant to make the Security Council effective, not paralyze it. The hope was that until there is mutual cooperation between the great powers, real peace cannot be established. If a proposal was passed despite opposition from one great power, there would be no way to implement it. If one major power is unwilling to accept a decision or recommendation, trying to compel it through majority could endanger world peace. Such an action would lead to war, not peace. So abolishing veto powers would also be of no use. According to Schleicher, "The veto is the result of disagreement, not the cause, so abolishing it will not be of any special benefit." It is also argued that the great powers agreed to join the UN only after getting a guarantee of the veto power. Perhaps the UN would not exist without the veto power (No Veto No U.N.). 

According to Brierley, "The veto is the price which the United Nations has had to pay for a system of collective action by the great powers and it is clear that the price is a high one." It was on this basis that the establishment of the UN was made possible. The UN's failures are not solely because of the veto provision, but the political climate it has to operate in today. A.E. Stevenson opined that "Vetoes do not lie at the root of our difficulties, they merely reflect the unfortunate divisions between ourselves and the Russians. If we want to eliminate veto, we should eliminate those divisions. The principle of unanimity was born out of the realities of international political life. If the five great states cannot agree on a course of action, the use of force against one of them would unleash a great war. The UN was set up to avoid precisely that." In the present circumstances, the veto arrangement has proven beneficial for world peace and the UN. Undoubtedly, peace has been disturbed here and there over minor disputes and the Security Council has failed to take effective action, but a major unrest or war has not broken out. The Kuwait-Iraq crisis was an hour of trial.