Power, as defined by Max Weber, is the probability that an actor will achieve desired ends despite resistance from others. (Weber, 1921, p.53) It operates on various levels, from the micro-level within households and classrooms to the macro-level involving entire countries. The concept of power also extends to global politics, where institutions like the United Nations, with 193 member states, play a central role. (United Nations, n.d.)
The Security Council is a vital body in the system of the United Nations, responsible for maintaining international peace and security. The Council holds considerable power due to its ability to produce binding resolutions. The Security Council comprises fifteen members, ten rotating and five permanent members known as the P5: China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA. The P5 members are also entitled to veto, emphasizing their significant influence and power in the Council. (United Nations, 1945, p.6-8)
The power of the P5 inside the Security Council displays itself in many ways; at times it is more overt than at others. Steven Lukes’ theory of three dimensions provides a framework for understanding the power of the P5, which includes visible power, manipulating the political agenda and influencing beliefs. (Lukes, 1974, p.29) This essay aims to show the power exercised by the P5 of the Security Council through Lukes’s three faces of power.
The first dimension of power;
The ability of the P5 members to wield power through their formal authority, especially by using their veto power, can be shown via the first dimension, which measures observable aspects of power. Lukes based his first dimension on the theories of Dahl. Dahl tried to measure power by observing who is victorious in decision-making situations where there is a conflict of interest between actors. (Lukes, 1974, p.16-19)
An illustrative example of the first dimension of power within the Security Council is a situation in the Syrian civil war. In 2017, following a chemical attack in Syria, the Security Council tried to draft a resolution calling for an investigation and requesting accountability from the Syrian government. Despite widespread international support for the resolution, Russia, a P5 member, exercised its veto power to block the resolution, thereby preventing any decisive action by the Council. (AFP, 2017)
The use of Russia’s veto shows a visible and explicit exercise of authority. Looking back at Dahl’s theory: Russia is victorious in this particular decision because of their veto power. Not only Russia has this power, but all five permanent members can exercise their power in the same way. Through their ability to veto resolutions, they can assert their national interests and agendas on the global stage, by shaping the Security Council’s resolutions.
By analysing the P5’s power through the first dimension, it becomes evident that their formal authority within the Security Council enables them to wield significant power over international affairs. The first dimension highlights the structural inequalities embedded within the Council’s decision-making processes, where the veto power can be used to uphold national interests and priorities, sometimes at the expense of addressing urgent global challenges.
The second dimension of power;
Within the United Nations Security Council, the P5 members exercise influence not only through their formal authority but also by controlling which topics are discussed and framing said topics. Lukens refers to this as the second dimension, a dimension which emerged when Bachrach and Baratz criticised Dahl’s theory. They argued that power is not limited to influencing decisions; it also includes controlling whether issues are even put on the political agenda. Two concepts associated with this are non-decisions and mobilization of bias. Non-decisions refer to issues that never make it to the political agenda, called potential issues. (Bachrach & Baratz, p.947-952) Mobilization of bias, as described by Schattschneider: ‘All forms of political organization have a bias in favour of the exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the suppression of others, because organization is the mobilization of bias. Some issues are organized into politics while others are organized out.’ (Schattschneider, 1960, p.71)
An illustration of the second dimension of power within the Security Council is the threat of a veto, commonly referred to as a hidden veto. For instance, in 1994, during the Rwandan Genocide, the United Nations failed to take decisive action. The avoidance of the term ‘genocide’ in official discussions was forced by a hidden veto from the USA and France. These nations effectively framed and downplayed the gravity of the situation by stating their intention to veto any resolution recognizing the situation as genocide. There are many more instances where the permanent members avoided topics by simply threatening to veto. (Nahory, 2004)
According to Bachrach and Baratz’s theory, the concept of non-decisions applies when certain issues fail to make it onto the political agenda, as no decisions can be taken on that issue. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, the issue was not fittingly discussed within the Security Council due to the fear that proposals would not see implementation. Therefore the genocide partly became a potential issue that was not properly discussed. Additionally, looking at the mobilization of bias it is clear that the USA and France tried to suppress this conflict and partly managed to remove the genocide from the political agenda. This resulted in a lack of action by the international community.
Through the lens of the second dimension of power, it becomes apparent that the P5 members exercise influence not only through formal mechanisms but also through indirect actions, like hidden vetoes and framing situations. These actions allow them to set a large part of the political agenda. This dimension highlights the importance of understanding how power operates beyond explicit displays of authority, shedding light on the nuanced dynamics of decision-making within the Security Council.
The third dimension of power;
Within the Security Council, the P5 members exercise influence through the third dimension by trying to shape international beliefs so they with their interests. The third dimension of power, as explained by Steven Lukes, delves into the most subtle forms of power, focusing on the ability to shape individuals’ preferences and perceptions to the extent that they are not even aware that certain choices might not be in their best interest. To determine the most powerful actor you need to go beneath the surface and identify who materially gains from a decision, analysing what the actors’ ‘real interests’ are. (Lukes, 1974, p.25-29)
An example of the P5 members shaping international norms within the Security Council is their framing of discussions around humanitarian interventions. Particularly China has consistently advocated for the principle of non-interference in states’ internal affairs as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. By framing intervention as a violation of sovereignty, they shape the discourse and establish norms that prioritize state sovereignty over humanitarian concerns. Hereby they reinforce their power and limit the scope of international intervention. They can frame situations in such a way because of the threat of their veto. (Freeman, 2023)
The third dimension of power operates through the subtle manipulation of beliefs, influencing actor’s perceptions of what is acceptable or desirable. Within the Security Council, the P5 members wield their influence to promote certain norms and values that serve their interests while marginalizing alternative perspectives. For example, by shaping the international view around issues such as sovereignty and intervention, China can reinforce that they are autonomous and can act freely. Other countries may come to believe that refraining from intervention is morally the better choice, as it upholds sovereignty. This choice is however not totally their own or in their best interest, showing the exercise of the third dimension of power. By framing issues in a particular way the P5 can influence the decisions and actions of other member states, sometimes without their conscious awareness.
Through the lens of the third dimension of power, it becomes apparent that the P5 members exercise influence not only through formal mechanisms and agenda control but also through the subtle shaping of international norms and values. This dimension highlights the importance of critically examining the underlying assumptions and ideologies that inform global governance.
Conclusion;
In conclusion, the analysis of power within the Security Council of the United Nations through the lens of Steven Lukes’ three dimensions shows the complex dynamics shaping global governance. Through observable authority, agenda manipulation, and the subtle shaping of international beliefs, the P5 members are able to exercise significant power over decision-making processes within the Security Council. This essay has demonstrated how the P5 members use their power to achieve their interests, often at the expense of addressing urgent global challenges. By examining the dynamics of power within the Security Council, insights about complex international relations and inequalities in global governance can be gained. Moving forward, it is vital to continue studying the mechanisms of power within the Security Council to encourage more equitable and effective decision-making.
References
- AFP. (24 Oct, 2017). Russia uses veto to end UN investigation of Syria chemical attacks. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/24/russia-uses-veto-end-un-investigation-chemical-attacks
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1952796.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aba73dcb347d44b5b498387dc80f0be6b&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
- Freeman, C. (28 Sep, 2023). As China Looks to Reform Global Governance, How Does it Approach the U.N.? United States Institute of Peace. Available at: https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/china-looks-reform-global-governance-how-does-it-approach-un
- Nahory, C. (2004). The Hidden Veto. Global Policy Forum. Available at: https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security-council/42656-the-hidden-veto.html
- Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People. Available at: https://archive.org/details/semisovereignpeo00scha/page/n7/mode/1up
- Steven Lukes. (1974). Power: A Radical View. British Sociological Association. Available at: https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Power-A-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes.pdf
- United Nations. (1945). United Nations Charter. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf
- United Nations. (n.d.-a). About Us. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us
- Weber, M. (1921). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press. Available at: https://ia800202.us.archive.org/8/items/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety.pdf