More Efficient Security Council

The United Nations was created in 1945 following World War II, in an attempt to replace the League of Nations, which had failed in preventing said war, after it was created to preserve and enforce peace treaties after World War I. The prominent difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations is the inclusion of the United States in the latter. As the US was not part of the League, which contributed to the downfall of the organization and its inability to stop the Second World War.

Additionally, the UN is comprised of the General Assembly, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, and other affiliated organizations. The Security Council in particular functions through collective security among the countries, and acts to address issues of security. A fundamental part of this council is the fact that the five permanent and founding countries have veto power, which is supposed to give these countries an incentive in participating in making effective and substantial decisions. There is discussion as to whether this veto is fair to the other 10 rotating countries and how the Council should or could be restructured.

Changing the veto system to limit how many each of the permanent countries can use within a four year period, as this would be two cycles of the 10 rotating countries, would be effective in the decision making process. This would hopefully allow decisions to be made quicker and have more UN action in different international incidents. As critics of the veto state, this is the primary reason for the UN's inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If these counties are limited in their vetoes then hopefully they would feel more restraint in using them. Such as in potentially selfish manners, where a proposal doesn't quite benefit a permanent member thus they would normally veto this, however, the limit would act to prevent this behavior. This is, in turn, would create a more effective and speedier decision-making process.

Changing the veto system of the Security Council would also encourage smaller rotating countries to speak up and voice their opinions and proposals, as they would feel as though is a lesser chance of their proposals being diminished and vetoed. These proposals potentially being acknowledged could help the smaller countries in terms of security, diplomacy, and economics. Moreover, the rotating countries would be encouraged to add to the conversation, without fear of a permanent country holding a grudge against them in a later round and using the veto against them, again in a selfish and inappropriate manner.

In conclusion, revamping the veto system of the UN Security Council would be beneficial to all countries that partake in the UN. By altering the system, smaller countries would have a greater voice, compared to what they already have. A new and improved system of limiting the number of vetoes permanent countries have in a specific time period would allow for a quicker and more efficient decision-making process.