The UN Security Council has been gaining great prominence in recent years in the international sphere in terms of power and authority, especially after the end of the Cold War which divided the world in a plague of uncertainty. Indeed, the Council's increasing involvement in peacekeeping efforts, as well as expanded capabilities and power in decision-making and intervention has made them a respected and recognized actor in the international sphere by the majority of countries in the world.
This spike in activity is seemingly a pointer that the Council has been performing its set tasks and agendas in effective and satisfactory manners. However, their often displayed inability to intervene on time or effectively (e.g., Balkan and Middle Eastern wars, recent genocides) has made critics point out to the council's inability to cope with the challenges brought on by contemporary politics, arguing that a reform would be an ideal approach in solving some of these new issues and challenges.1
One of the proposed reforms for the Security Council suggests increasing the number of permanent seats within the Council from the current five (U.S., Russia, France, United Kingdom and China). While there have been multiple different variations/options for this proposal (varying number of members for both permanent and non-permanent countries), the question of increasing membership is still under extensive debate.2
Another important proposal is the veto reform. The five permanent members of the UNSC have a reserved right to veto power, meaning that each member has the ability to influence the outcome of proposed resolutions, even rejecting them completely if they please. This has, arguably, undermined the UN's capabilities of performing effectively due to the over-exerted influence of the permanent five.3