The United Nations: an overview

Although the United Nations remains heavily criticised for its complexity and bias towards the ‘big 5’ nations, it’s noble origins and ideals – embodied in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights – emphasises the need for a more democratic, powerful and ultimately more representative UN system that can act as a conduit for international cooperation and the securing of basic human needs. Below is a brief overview, some key facts and further resources that relate to the United Nations.



The creation of the United Nations by the victorious allies following World War II promised to deliver international peace, security, economic stability, and prosperity for the post-conflict era. A system of institutions and agencies, backed up by an ambitious legal treaty called the ‘UN Charter', were formed to harness cooperation between governments and prevent the breakdown in world order that had characterised the late 1930s. International relations scholars often refer to such cooperation, supported by institutions and legal rules, as ‘global governance'.

Today the United Nations' activities support 192 member states in the five areas of peace and security, economic and social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and international law. It has six main organs, of which five are based at the UN headquarters in New York: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council (now defunct), and the Secretariat, with the International Court of Justice located in The Hague, Netherlands. Universal membership from all recognised nation-states and the ‘sovereign independence' of each member is at the heart of the United Nations system.

Global Governance in Flux

Many changes have taken place since the idealism of the early post-war era. The Cold War and ensuing military and economic competition between the United States and the USSR largely paralysed the United Nations role in peacekeeping and its aim of promoting cooperation through a universal world organisation.  Despite this gridlock, a renewal in optimism in international cooperation and the UN role followed a wave of decolonisation in the late 1960s and 1970s, when a number of newly liberated nations believed that the organisation could guide a new ‘Development Decade'.  Underpinned by a belief in government intervention and reformed trade rules through UNCTAD, proponents stated that the UN could act as a conduit for a New International Economic Order to right the economic and social injustice of previous years.

Perhaps partly due to this idealism, critics contend that during the 1970s and 1980s more economically powerful nations sidelined and marginalised the UN role in global governance by moving policy decisions to smaller selective bodies such as the Group of 7 (later the Group of 8, or G8) and then reincarnated as the recently expanded Group of 20, or G20. Rather than using democratic international forums such as the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), major governments shifted policy-making power, coordination and funding to pre-existing international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Commentators claim that larger international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation serve the interests of their most powerful members instead of addressing the needs of the world's majority population. At the heart of these criticisms is the belief that these organisations, sponsored and funded by the largest economic powers, most notably the United States and members of the European Union, are undemocratic in their decision-making and exclude many of the actors that will be most affected by their policies. These institutions have also been widely maligned for pushing the ideology of global economic integration through open markets (often know as ‘neoliberalism') to limit the role of governments in guiding development goals and providing public goods. Many specialists note that ‘neoliberal' ideology, which encouraged the removal of the state role in promoting human development, may have exacerbated global poverty and inequality.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 appeared to usher in another era of international cooperation and multilateralism through the United Nations. Since the 1990s, however, a number of controversial events have placed the perceived effectiveness and legitimacy of the United Nations further in doubt, including an unsuccessful US-led military intervention in Somalia, the failure of members of the Security Council to act against genocide in Rwanda, and the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom in 2003. As we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st Century, the United Nations appears at a crossroads, indispensible but also in need of major reform.

Lack of Funding

Despite its importance as an international institution, the United Nations must contend with severe budgetary limitations and complicated, unreliable cash flows. In total, the entire UN system spent approximately US$25 billion dollars in 2007. This sum includes not only the regular budget of the central headquarters, peacekeepers and international courts, but also the programmes and funds of the UN's specialised agencies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Food Programme (WFP) and UN Children's Fund (UNICEF).

When assessed against other priorities, government funding of the United Nations remains minuscule in comparison to other budgets such as military spending. Analysts suggest that while member states spend a little more than US$3 for each of the world's inhabitants on funding the UN and its agencies annually, expenditure on military budgets stands at over US$215 per person per year - a ratio of over 1 to 70. Some estimates conclude that world military spending could pay for the entire UN budget for 67 years.

In addition, many UN member states pay their dues late or only in part. Recent estimates suggest that over three quarters of all member states fail to pay their dues to the UN in full and on time. As of October 2009, member states owed the United Nations US$829 million to its regular budget (with the United States accounting for 93 percent of this total).

A More Effective United Nations

The United Nations system clearly remains in need of far-reaching reform. Some of the institutions of the global body, first designed in 1945, appear out-dated for the challenges and risks of the 21st century. The increase in non-state actors, changes in political power between countries and shifting realities of intra-state warfare, peacekeeping and nation-building have all challenged the institutional design of the UN and its staff.

Despite its flaws, the UN remains the most effective body to act as a conduit for international cooperation between nation-states. The UN's universal membership endows the body with a legitimacy and breadth of knowledge that no other international institution can match. It has also placed human rights at the centre of domestic and international policy-making, most notably through the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Civil and Political Rights. The world body remains the only institution operating globally that can impartially analyse and address multiple interconnected issues such as increasing resource scarcity, threats to biodiversity, climate change and global poverty.

Facing major interrelated crises and rapidly proliferating risks across borders, there is increasing recognition that nations acting alone cannot solve collective global problems. As international integration has increased, policy responses that require cooperation between governments has become ever more important - as evidenced by the need for a coordinated response to the worldwide financial crisis. To contend with these threats to international stability, as well as the urgent need to address global poverty and environmental stability, a reformed and fully funded United Nations remains the most legitimate forum to harness and channel cooperation between governments to address immediate and pressing goals.   

Key facts

The United Nations: An Ambitious and Idealistic Vision

A series of high-level meetings between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union during World War II set the outline for new a global governance system that would aim to ensure peace and prosperity for all in the post-conflict era. Following from these negotiations, fifty-one countries signed the UN Charter to become the founding members of the United Nations on 26th June 1945 in San Francisco, USA. 

"The Purposes of the United Nations are: to maintain international peace and security ... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights ... to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character ... and to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."[1] - The United Nations Charter 

"I believe profoundly that only the success ... of the United Nations can prevent a Third World War and achieve lasting peace. The United Nations will succeed if the peoples of the world, acting through their governments, insist upon unwavering support for the United Nations ... not only part of the time, but all of the time."[2] - Trygve Lie, First Secretary-General of the United Nations

"The recognition and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in the hope of drawing from the last World War which demanded the sacrifice of so many lives, the lessons which will aid us to achieve the highest aspirations of mankind."[3] - United Nations Economic and Social Council, second session

"The United Nations will not be able to remove the fear of war from the world unless substantial progress ... toward the realisation of ... freedom from want. [A]ll nations should be able to develop a healthy economic life of their own. We believe that all peoples should be able to reap the benefits of their own labor and of their own natural resources."[4] - US President Truman - at an address to opening session of the United Nations General Assembly

The UN was established with six principal organs; the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Trusteeship Council(ICJ) and the Secretariat. The UN Charter conceived these six organs as the central decision-making structures of the UN system. (suspended since 1994), the International Court of Justice

In addition, the United Nations encompasses fifteen specialised agencies including the World Bank Group and the World Health Organisation (WHO). It also incorporates numerous specialised programmes and funds such as; the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Importance of the United Nations

The United Nations remains of essential importance as the central forum for negotiation and diplomacy in addressing common international challenges. The United Nations has universal representation from internationally recognised nation-states as well as over 13,000 civil society organisations.

"Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organisation in the world, the United Nations must play the central role ... the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family."[5]

"Over 500 multilateral treaties-on human rights, terrorism, international crime, refugees, disarmament, commodities and the oceans-have been enacted through the efforts of the United Nations"[6]

The United Nations' system of specialised agencies has become essential to any efforts to secure international economic, social and political development. UN agencies, programmes and funds have core responsibility for, among others, child welfare and development (UNICEF), HIV/AIDS prevention, education and treatment (UNAIDS), drug control (UNDCP) and the promotion and protection of human rights (OHCHR).

"The UN system's annual expenditures for development, excluding the international financial institutions, amount to more than US$10 billion."[7]

"The UN system mounts more than 10,000 development projects per year."[8]

The World Food Programme delivers emergency food assistance to more than 100 million people a year in 80 countries.[9]

The High Commissioner for Refugees provides international protection and assistance to over 31.7 million refugees and helps set up refugee camps in over 110 countries.[10]

Since 1948, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has led sixty-three missions in more than 35 countries, from Mozambique and Uganda to Tajikistan, Georgia and Haiti.[11]

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has been instrumental in establishing the language and norms of human rights at the centre of international politics. The Declaration identified fundamental and universal rights, and declared:

 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."[12]

More than sixty years on, the thirty Articles of the Declaration have had a profound impact on development, humanitarianism, and international relations.

Underfunded, Understaffed and Over-stretched?

Member states of the United Nations fund the organisation through a combination of voluntary donations and contributions based on the relative strength of their national economies. As of 31 August 2008, the three largest contributors (United States, Japan and Germany) provided 47.2 per cent of UN funding.[13]

Including both voluntary and assessed contributions, the entire UN system spent approximately US$25 billion dollars in 2007.[14] This total includes not only the regular budget of the central headquarters, peacekeepers and international courts, but also the programmes and funds of the UN's specialised agencies (e.g. UNESCO, UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WFP).

Member states spend a little more than US$3 for each of the world's inhabitants on funding the United Nations and its agencies, while experts suggest that world military expenditures stood at US$218 per person in 2008 (US$1464 billion in total).[15] Annual military spending of United Nations' member states "would pay for the entire UN system for 67 years."[16]

The regular budget of the UN Secretariat (the overall budget excluding peacekeeping operations) was approximately US$4.171 billion in 2008-2009; around US$2 billion per year.[17] The United Nations compares their budget favourably to those of other organisations such as the Metropolitan Government of Tokyo's Fire Department that has a budget totalling US$2.2 billion per year.[18]

The United Nations employs fewer people (63,450 staff) than the United States Department of Education (71,000) and the authority of the City of Ontario (80,000).[19]

Analysts suggest that over 80 percent of all member states fail to pay their dues to the UN in full and on time.[20]

As the largest and most powerful economy, the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations. As of 31 August 2008, member states owed the United Nations $919 million. Of that total, the United States owed the United Nations $846 million to its regular budget (not including peacekeeping budgets).[21]

The Marginalisation of the UN in Global Economic Governance

"Over the last decade the UN has woken up from the long winter of the Cold War to find itself blocked by the rocks of the big economic institutions ... [T]he UN finds itself unable to meet the suppressed hopes and real needs of the majority of its members because the keystones of the international financial architecture are occupied and guarded by the wealthy minority of nations."[22] - New Economics Foundation

 "Globalisation itself has been governed in ways that are undemocratic and have been disadvantageous to developing countries, especially the poor within those countries ... [W]e have a system of what I call global governance without global government. International institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, the World Bank, and others provide an ad hoc system of global governance, but it is a far cry from global government and lacks democratic accountability."[23] - Joseph Stiglitz

"The agreement it [the World Bank] did have was ‘more a declaration of independence'. Since then, the Bretton Woods institutions have not subjected themselves to ‘substantive co-ordination by the UN,' and not only are they ‘attempting to expand their sphere of operation,' but have found ‘a willing and yielding partner in the UN.' This is in spite of the fact that the UN is acknowledged, even by the G8, as the only place where economic, social, political and security issues can be discussed coherently."[24] - Adebayo Adedeji, former UN Under Secretary-General

ECOSOC: International Cooperation for Economic and Social Justice?  

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) was established in 1945 as one of the United Nation's six principal organs. Governments originally mandated ECOSOC through the Charter of the United Nations to coordinate international economic, social, cultural, educational and health policies.

"We have linked the achievement of freedom from fear, the delivery of mankind from the peril of want ... Without social justice and security there is no real foundation for peace... [As] important [to] us is the work of the Security Council, no less vital is to make the Economic and Social Council an effective international instrument. A police force is a necessary part of a civilised community, but the greater the social security and contentment of the population the less important is the police force."[25] - Clement Attlee, former British Prime Minister and Chair of the First United Nations General Assembly

ECOSOC oversees more than 70 percent of the entire range of the UN's work.[26] [This technically includes the World Bank, IMF and WTO]. "But for all the soaring Charter language, the United States and its allies never permitted the United Nations to assume its full powers in the social and economic fields."[27] - James A. Paul, Global Policy Forum

UNCTAD: A Trade Regime to the Benefit of the Poor?

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was formed on 30 December 1964 as:

 "A forum for developing countries to mount a challenge to the existing world order with a view to restructuring it for the purpose of removing its inequalities and imbalances ... [and] as a significant step towards creating a new and just economic world order."[28] - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations

UNCTAD negotiated trade agreements and articulated the needs of developing countries during the 1970s. The Conference is described by its Secretary-General as "connected to the G77 by an umbilical cord."[29]

Instead of offering a genuine counterpoint to the dominant economic policies of the most powerful nations, UNCTAD "has been required to conform to the mainstream views espoused by developed countries and their preferred international organisation i.e. IMF and World Bank, on globalisation, liberalisation and development strategies ... It has been steered away from all those areas where it used to put forward contending positions vis-à-vis the dominant economic thinking."[30] - Boutros Boutros-Ghali

A Call for Reform

Civil society groups, UN figures and a wide range of internal and external activists have submitted proposals to both strengthen the UN's position at the centre of international policy-making, and to improve its internal workings.

Reform proposals address all branches of the United Nations system. Among the topics and regular themes for renewal, UN reform proposals commonly address the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Security Council.

General Assembly: Strengthening Legitimacy and Authority

Many reform proposals focus on strengthening the authority of the General Assembly to match its legitimacy, especially in its relationship with the Security Council.

"The UN General Assembly (UNGA), being the most democratic and representative body in the international legal order, must be the primary policy and decision making body."[31] -World Federalist Movement

"The fact that so many resolutions from the UNGA are not actually implemented is a sore point among Member States across the board and no other weakness of the UNGA probably undermines its relevance or effectiveness more."[32]

The World Federalist Movement "supports the empowering of the UNGA to act when the Security Council is unwilling or blocked from addressing humanitarian or security crises, and calls for a greater use of ... the resolution, better known as ‘Uniting for Peace'."[33

Many reforms promote strengthening the UN's legitimacy through the way it operates, and not just its moral authority. Proposals to introduce greater accountability, transparency, and public involvement range from the popular election of the Secretary-General to the establishment of a Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), with the UNPA acting as "a unique and legitimate body to represent the voice of citizens in international matters."[34] - Campaign for a UN Parliament

ECOSOC: Restoring the UN's Role in Global Economic Governance

A number of institutions, activists and reformers believe that governments should revitalise ECOSOC to undertake greater responsibility in international economic affairs.

"ECOSOC must measure up to the expectations and standards imposed on it ... While developed countries focus on ECOSOC's reforms aimed at achieving certain goals of efficiency and effectiveness ... developing countries must ensure that such achievement does not come at the expense of the ECOSOC's political mandate of serving as the UN's oversight and coordinating mechanism for global economic governance."[35]- South Centre

The World Federalist Movement similarly proposes empowering ECOSOC: "to address economic and social concerns with the same authority that the Security Council holds over peace and security. WFM-IGP advocates for a strong ECOSOC capable of coordinating international economic matters and dealing with socio-economic threats as root causes of war and conflict."[36]

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's proposals in 2007 indicate an increasing focus on directing ECOSOC towards monitoring and coordination of development activities, such as the achievement of Millennium Development Goal 7.[37]

Security Council: Restructuring Power Imbalances

The Security Council is one of the highest-profile UN-bodies, and it is the subject of frequent demands for reform. "No principle UN organ has failed in its responsibility as much as the Security Council, and there can be no doubt about the need for reform of this vital body."[38]

Critical organisations and member states demand a more representative membership, and the abolition of the veto and permanent seats.[39]

"The group that makes major decisions with its five permanent member states, including France, US, China, England [UK] and Russia, has become what some term ‘anachronistic' ... Most critics of the current make-up of the Security Council suggest that it needs to catch up with the new world dynamic to properly account for the changes in power and geographic representation. Various proposals have been made ... mainly pushed by four countries, Germany, India, Japan, and Brazil, to join the council. However, the five permanent members with powerful veto ability do not wish to share their power and expansion of the Council cannot be agreed upon"[40] - South Centre

There is a wide range of proposals to remodel the structure of the membership of the Security Council. Analysts and critics commonly agree that membership enlargement is essential to increasing the legitimacy of the Security Council. However, the terms on which membership would be based are contentious.

Kofi Annan's High-level Panel's report A More Secure World: our Shared Responsibility suggested two models for an enlarged Security Council, proposing expansions of permanent seats, and mixes of rotating seats are distributed between four major regional areas; Africa; Asia and Pacific, Europe, and Americas.

James A. Paul of Global Policy Forum similarly suggests "Informal regional arrangements provide the best route to representation on the Council, as a prelude to regional seats. Regional unions of states like the European Union or the African Union will lead in this direction."[41]

All Member states outside of the Permanent Five members (United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) commonly deride the power of veto as inequitable. Critics see the veto as an unrepresentative and obstructive anachronism, a reflection of the global dynamics in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.

"We recognise that the veto had an important function in reassuring the United Nations' most powerful members that their interests would be safeguarded. We see no practical way of changing the existing member's veto powers. Yet, as a whole the institution of the veto has an anachronistic character that is unsuitable for the institution in an increasingly democratic age and we would urge that its use be limited to matters where vital interests are genuinely at stake."[42] - Kofi Annan, seventh Secretary-General of the UN

2005 Reform Efforts Thwarted

Secretary-General Kofi Annan instigated the most recent drive for UN reform when he produced a 2005 report, ‘In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All', which proposed strengthening the UN's capacity to meet the Millennium Development Goals by interlinking security with development. This reform effort was obstructed by a number of more powerful member states during the 2005 World Summit.

The United States made "750 amendments ... to the outcome text of the 2005 summit. In many cases, US positions vis-à-vis the issues discussed in the UN often indicated an increasing dissatisfaction with the UN and an increasing willingness to wield its power over the UN's purse to push forward its perspectives ... It heavily favoured the developed countries' stance on issues such as aid, which were continually tied to conditions that are deemed unfair, and trade, which favours liberalisation that is largely helpful to rich countries."[43]

Among the other amendments made to the original document, references to Security Council reform, the International Criminal Court, or nuclear non-proliferation were removed, and instead a new Human Rights Council and Peace Building Commission were created.

Kofi Annan's response to the outcome document following the Millennium+5 Summit demonstrated his disappointment: "[...] let us be frank with each other, and with the peoples of the United Nations. We have not yet achieved the sweeping and fundamental reform that I and many others believe is required. Sharp differences, some of them substantive and legitimate, have played their part in preventing that."[44]

Further resources








[1] UN Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles, <>

[2] Trygve Lie, First Secretary-General of the United Nations, Statement at the Ceremony of Placement of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the cornerstone of the Permanent Headquarters Building of the United Nations, New York, 24 October 1949

[3] United Nations Economic and Social Council; Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Commission of Human Rights to the Second Session of the Economic and Social Council, E/38, 17 May 1946

[4] US President Truman, Address in New York City at the Opening Session of the United Nations General Assembly, October 23, 1946

[5] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, United Nations Millennium Declaration, 8 September 2000

[6] United Nations Department of Public Information, 60 Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference, 2005

[7] United Nations Department of Public Information, 60 Ways the United Nations Makes a Difference, 2005

[8] Peter Baehr and Leon Gordenker, The United Nations Reality and Ideal, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, Fourth Edition, 2005, pp. 126

[9] UN World Food Programme, Our Work, <>

[10] UNHCR-The UN Refugee Agency, Basic Facts, <>

[11] United Nations Peacekeeping, List of Operations, < >

[12] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1, <>

[13] United Nations Secretariat, Status of Contributions as at 31 August 2008, ST/ADM/SER.B/753, pp. 6-8

[14] Global Policy Forum, Total UN System Contributions, <>

[15] Global Policy Forum, UN Finance, <>, and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Recent Trends in Military Expenditure, <

[16] United Nations,  Is the United Nations Good Value for the Money?, <>  

[17] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Programme Budget for the Biennium 2008-2009', A/RES/63/264 A-C

[18] United Nations, Is the United Nations Good Value for the Money?, <>

[19] United Nations, Who Works at the United Nations and What Do They Do there?, <>

[20] Global Policy Forum, Tables and Charts: the UN Regular Budget , <>

[21] Global Policy Forum, UN Finance, <>

[22] Andrew Simms, Tom Bigg and Nick Robins, It's Democracy Stupid' The Trouble with the Global Economy and The United Nations' Lost Role, London: New Economics Foundation, 2000

[23] Joseph Stiglitz, Globalism's Discontents, American Prospect, January 2002

[24] Adebayo Adedeji, United Nations Under Secretary-General, cited in Andrew Simms, Tom Bigg and Nick Robins, ‘It's Democracy Stupid' The Trouble with the Global Economy and The United Nations' Lost Role, London: New Economics Foundation, 2000

[25] Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister and Chair of the First United Nations General Assembly, First Session of the General Assembly, 10 January 1946, pp. 42-43, <>

[26] United Nations, What Does ECOSOC Do?, <>

[27] James A. Paul, The United Nations and Global Social-Economic Policy, New York: Global Policy Forum, 1996

[28] Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Reinventing UNCTAD, Geneva: South Centre, 2006

[29] Dr. Supachai Panichpakdi, Message from the Secretary General of UNCTAD to the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Group of 77, New York, 2006

[30] Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Reinventing UNCTAD, Geneva: South Centre, 2006

[31] World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, A Call for International Democracy, New York: WFM-IGP

[32] Lydia Stewart, Managing Change at the United Nations: Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly,  New York: Center for UN Reform Education, April 2008 

[33] World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, A Call for International Democracy, New York: WFM-IGP

[34] Campaign for a UN Parliament, About the UNPA Proposal, <>

[35] South Centre, Meeting the Challenges of UN Reform: A South Perspective, Geneva: South Centre, August 2006, pp. 27

[36] World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, A Call for International Democracy, New York: WFM-IGP

[37] United Nations, Reform at the United Nations: Moving Forward on Developmental Challenges,<>

[38] World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, A Call for International Democracy, New York: WFM-IGP

[39] South Centre, For a Strong and Democratic UN: A South Perspective on UN Reforms: Overview and Main Policy Conclusions, August 1995

[40] South Centre, Meeting the Challenges of UN Reform: A South Perspective, Geneva: South Centre, August 2006

[41] James Paul and Céline Nahory, Theses Towards a Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council, Global Policy Forum, 2005

[42] Kofi Annan, Report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, pp. 68

[43] South Centre, Meeting the Challenges of UN Reform: A South Perspective, Geneva: South Centre, August 2006

[44] UN News Centre, ‘Annan opens World Summit with Plea Not to Let Down Billions around the Globe', 14 September 2005