End the UN Security Council's Monopoly Over Choosing the Next UN Chief

Calls to reform the process of selecting the next United Nations Secretary-General are gaining attention, with critics urging the organisation to reduce the Security Council’s control and give the General Assembly a stronger role in choosing its top official. Under Article 97 of the UN Charter, the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly following a recommendation from the Security Council. The arrangement gives the Council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France — significant influence over the selection, as any one of them can block a candidate through its veto power.

Reform advocates argue that a position representing the entire international community should be filled through a more inclusive process. They say the current system allows a small group of powerful countries to exercise decisive influence over a decision that affects all 193 UN member states. The existing procedure reflects the power structure established when the United Nations was founded in 1945. However, changing geopolitical realities have intensified questions about whether the selection mechanism adequately represents the interests of developing nations and smaller countries.

The General Assembly has introduced measures to improve transparency, including public dialogues with candidates and the disclosure of their priorities and qualifications. Nevertheless, the Security Council retains its central role because the Assembly cannot appoint a Secretary-General without the Council’s recommendation.

The debate has become particularly relevant as the United Nations prepares for a leadership transition following António Guterres’s scheduled departure at the end of 2026. The next Secretary-General will face major international challenges, including armed conflicts, humanitarian emergencies, geopolitical tensions and growing concerns about the effectiveness of multilateral institutions.

Supporters of reform believe the General Assembly should have greater influence in assessing candidates and determining who is best suited to lead the organisation. They argue that a broader selection process could strengthen the legitimacy of the appointment and improve confidence among member states.

However, changing the formal selection mechanism would present significant political and legal challenges. Any fundamental alteration to the UN Charter would require approval under its amendment procedures, including ratification by all five permanent Security Council members. The debate also highlights a difficult balance between democratic representation and political practicality. While a more inclusive process could strengthen the legitimacy of the next Secretary-General, the officeholder would still need to work closely with major powers to address international crises. As discussions over UN leadership reform continue, the central question remains whether the organisation can make its appointment process more representative without undermining the cooperation needed to maintain international peace and security.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Reuters.