⏰ 2/5
Nearly eight decades after the establishment of the United Nations, the world has transformed faster than the institution designed to regulate it. Conflicts are no longer confined within borders, civilians have become the primary victims of violence, and political power is no longer monopolized by states alone. Structural reform has therefore become necessary if the UN is to remain credible and effective.
This concern was clearly articulated by His Excellency Kofi Annan (Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1997–2006) in his reform report In Larger Freedom (2005): where he emphasized that the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Organization depend on adapting its structures to contemporary realities.
At the same time, global political representation itself faces a serious challenge. According to the V-Dem Democracy Report 2025, about 72 percent of the world’s population lives under autocratic or non-democratic rule. In other words, many governments participating in international decision-making do not fully represent the will of their societies.
For this reason, meaningful reform of the United Nations cannot remain exclusively state-centered. International non-governmental organizations — in many cases — reflect public concerns more accurately than governments do. Their role should move beyond consultation toward participation in policy formulation and implementation.
Among such organizations, Amnesty International holds a distinctive global position. Founded in 1961, it is one of the most influential human rights NGOs worldwide, with millions of supporters across more than 150 countries. Courts, governments, and international bodies regularly rely on its documented reports because of its independent investigation methodology and non-partisan advocacy.
On 25 February 2015, Amnesty International presented a practical and realistic proposal in its global human rights report — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should voluntarily refrain from using the veto in situations involving genocide and mass atrocities:
The proposal did not require amending the UN Charter; rather, it suggested a self-binding political commitment that would allow the Council to act when civilian lives are at immediate risk.
This recommendation had the potential to significantly improve the Council’s effectiveness. Yet despite its practicality, it did not receive the attention it deserved.
Now, on the anniversary of that proposal, we raise it once again. Decades of experience — and repeated misuse of the veto during humanitarian crises — demonstrate how paralysis undermines both justice and trust in international law. Revisiting this idea is not an abstract institutional debate but a concrete step toward preventing future atrocities.
The United Nations was created to prevent humanity from reliving catastrophic violence. Preserving that mission today requires structural adaptation and serious engagement with credible civil society initiatives. The Amnesty proposal remains one of the clearest examples of a reform that is realistic, limited, and immediately actionable.
We therefore invite NGOs, civil society activists, intellectuals, academics, and religious leaders to support this proposal and to actively contribute to similar initiatives that strengthen the United Nations and effective multilateralism. The future of global order will not be shaped by governments alone, but by the conscious participation of the global community.