By

In September 2003 the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan called for the reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to make it more effective and representative of 21st century "geopolitical realities.1 " The concerns over effectiveness and equal representation along with demands of transparency have been articulated by a number of the UN member-states in earlier debates around the issue. The debates have become particularly vigorous after the end of the Cold War that, as Ofuaku and Ukaga point out, “ushered in a renewed interest in democratic governance all over the world”2. However, on the flipside of the quest for global democratization, the UN and particularly the Security Council came under harsh criticism for the lack of transparency and equal representation in their structure. Despite virtually unanimous dissatisfaction with the UNSC work voiced by the majority of the UN member-states and developing states in particular, they differ on the types of the actions to be taken to improve the situation. These differences reflect the aspirations and fears of particular state actors and reveal an enormous complexity of the problem at hand. This essay considers major criticisms addressed to the UNSC and discusses different versions of the reform proposed by various states and academics. It also attempts to assess the realism and practicality of the reform proposals on the table. Finally, it reflects on the effect that the reform would have on the legitimacy of the UN Security Council and its role in maintaining global peace and security.