UN Security Council Debates Action on Iran

As the US continues to rattle its saber--or at least rattle some sanctions--at Iran, the UN Security Council is staged to once again be predictably deadlocked, with Russia and China likely to vote against a resolution that the US, Great Britain, and France would support. (Links to more articles on the latest developments.)

In the eyes of some observers, the Security Council is fundamentally crippled by its structure, 'victim to geopolitical forces too strong for a legalist institution to withstand.' There is also the issue of the Council's composition, largely a product of WWII and the Cold War. Certainly, the situation is more complicated than it would have been fifty years ago--while Great Britain and France would support the US in the Council, the EU has consistently taken a softer tack than the US.

Is the membership of the Security Council dated? Would changing membership to reflect the world's current balance of power make a difference, or are the problems deeper than that? In today's increasingly multipolar world, does going to the Security Council with such resolutions make sense for any state actor, especially when the American superstate seems willing to establish another temporary coalition if the UN won't back its agenda?

Star This to Save in Your Profile