Why reform the UN: role of middle powers and ineffectiveness of the current architecture

Alongside concerns over enhanced cybersecurity and AI development, the issue of reforming the international architecture was also raised. Among those voicing such concerns were UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Ishiba, Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, and Secretary for Relations with States of the Holy See Paul Richard Gallagher. The trend is apparent: there is a growing consensus within the international community on the need for reform, with Kazakhstan at the center of this conversation.

The need for reform, in turn, is rooted in several factors. The central one is that the existing security architecture was established nearly a century ago, when the Allies founded the UN following the end of World War II. Since then, it has not undergone any major transformation despite multiple milestones that have not only modified but radically reshaped the international system. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the USSR marked a new era in international relations based on democratic and liberal values, yet the architecture failed to adapt accordingly. This idea was advanced by Francis Fukuyama, and although some of his points remain contentious today, it is clear that the post-WWII bipolar structure is no longer relevant.

In 1945, there were 51 founding UN members; today, this number has quadrupled to 193. Yet the Security Council - the UN’s key security organ - still revolves around five permanent members with veto power, just as it did 80 years ago. The system no longer reflects the growing influence of middle powers such as Germany, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, and India, which by their economic strength, political weight, or cultural reach may not only match but surpass some of the UNSC’s permanent members - the victors of WWII. For instance, Germany and Japan are the world’s third- and fourth-largest economies, after the US and China, ahead of the UK, France, and Russia. Militarily, India and South Korea are ranked fourth and fifth, respectively, ahead of the UK and France, according to the 2025 Global Firepower Index.

Other states that are not permanent members increasingly project influence through energy, economics, technology, digitalization, and, more recently, AI. These include Turkey, Brazil, Israel, Australia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. Undoubtedly, granting middle powers a more active role in the architecture of international relations, on par with the UNSC’s permanent members, has become a critical prerequisite for sustainable peace and credible global governance.

Another reason why the international architecture needs reform is that international law enforcement has become ineffective. As President Tokayev emphasized multiple times, humanity is witnessing the steady erosion of the basic principles of international law. One of the main causes is that the old system no longer addresses today’s realities. The veto power of the UNSC’s permanent members is among the instruments contributing to this inefficiency. On the one hand, it grants disproportionate authority to five nations. On the other hand, it often blocks resolutions the Council might otherwise pass, undermining its effectiveness. In practice, the use of the veto has become a reflection of political positions rather than an instrument of last resort.

Historically, shifts in the architecture of international relations are not unprecedented. Before the UN, the world relied on the post-WWI League of Nations, which lasted for 26 years (1919-1945). Conceived to prevent another global conflict, the League ultimately failed to deter aggression in the 1930s, exposing the limitations of collective security without genuine enforcement mechanisms. The League was preceded by the Concert of Europe (1815-1914), which drew its legitimacy from the Congress of Vienna and maintained relative stability on the continent for nearly a century, relying on great-power consensus rather than institutionalized multilateralism. Before that, international law was primarily shaped by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War and laid the foundation for state sovereignty as the organizing principle of world politics.

Each of these systems was replaced after a crisis that rendered the previous one ineffective. Moreover, each subsequent system lasted for a shorter period than its predecessor, yet the UN breaks this pattern, surviving for 80 years. Considering the pace of modern developments and how profoundly the world has changed over the past eight decades, it is striking that the UN has not been reformed. The current international system, with the UN and the UNSC at its center, still draws its legitimacy from the outcome of World War II. But the world has transformed, and its security can no longer be governed by a model that fails to reflect present-day realities or include key stakeholders - the middle powers - in global decision-making.

As previously reported in October, Kazakhstan marked the 80th anniversary of the United Nations and reaffirmed its steadfast commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, based on respect for human rights and the promotion of sustainable development.