The need to reform the Security Council

One of the main issues related to the war in Syria is that of control over the use of chemical weapons and those who must enforce these limitations. The scenario is the international one, therefore regulated by laws that too often are not respected; in this context the supranational subject with greater responsibility should be represented by the United Nations, however, of the three organs from which they are composed, the Secretary General, the Assembly and the Security Council, only the latter would have the possibility to enforce the resolutions decided by the assembly. The legal mechanism studied at the end of the Second World War, however, expressed a system based on cross votes, which gave permanent members too high a power, compared to other countries of the United Nations. This has produced a substantial inadequacy of the only organ of world government, remained a prisoner of special interests, ahead of the general ones. The Syrian case is only the latest, most recent, example of the substantial uselessness of an organization, which, like the one that preceded it, is heading towards failure. Of course the lack of proper means to enforce the decided treaties or the bans imposed on weapons, is a major obstacle, but even worse is the regulatory situation that allows permanent members to exercise, even individually, their right to vote only in function of their national interests. Several countries have repeatedly called for the need for reform, always denied by the selfishness of permanent members. Nor has it been possible to introduce corrective measures in the presence of particularly serious humanitarian situations, fearing that, in the near future, these exceptions could violate any conflicting state interests, for example with possible humanitarian aid. Unfortunately in history there will always be dictators like Assad, who will not be afraid to use the worst weapons, even against civilians, as they will always be ready to use these dictators to achieve their goals. However, a modification of the Security Council would be sufficient to try to introduce legal case studies that could prevent massacres and suffering, even without inserting new rules for the Assembly and for the functions of the Secretary General. Without change, the prestige of the Security Council, and, above all, of its permanent members is likely to decline considerably, but this could only be the first step in a progressive loss of the functions of the UN, which would register a substantial weakening, such as to endanger multilateral relations between states and that system which seeks to guarantee international security. Considering less and less serious certain crimes, such as, indeed, the use of chemical weapons, because seen with a view to normalizing the problem, can cause the loss of effectiveness of the fear of international sanctions and, therefore, give way to a system general with less and less rules, because those in force do not ensure the guarantee of repression and punishment of the perpetrators of crimes. The system of crossed vetoes, which is now the basis of the functioning of the United Nations, must be overcome by new regulations, which seek only to protect the minimum guarantees of the life of civilian populations, even in contrast with the interests of individual states. The insurance of the punishment of those who commit serious violations against the civilian population, even if in the role of head of state, must represent the first step to reaffirm the supranational task of protecting the general interest, which must be pursued by the United Nations the decay of international relations understood as a form of multilateralism, which in a global context should represent the common rule.