As such, the Security Council is only marginally relieved of burdens in many cases whereas regional arrangements necessarily continue to have little freedom of action. During the Kosovo crisis, the Security Council was not able to find a solution because of the Russian political blockade. This gave reason for NATO members to elaborate a new legal basis for intervention in case of a "humanitarian catastrophe." This legal construction for the legitimization of the air campaign against Serbia raised doubts. This has further advanced the belief that the Security Council must adapt to the post-Cold War situation of a more multipolar world. This concept found acceptance in Europe, but no solution has yet been found on the UN level as well as the question how the EU should be represented in a reformed Security Council. The aim to become a "single actor" contradicts in a certain way, e.g., the demand of Germany to become a permanent member of a reformed Security Council.
2. A permanent seat for Germany or the EU in the Security Council?
The EU's move into security and defense raises the question how EU interests will be represented in the Security Council. The EU Treaty envisions that permanent European members of the Security Council use their influence for Union interests. This is definitely a flexible and pragmatic solution. It certainly contradicts, however, the principle of equal representation of EU member states and is hard to accept for some powerful EU countries, especially Germany. This is one reason that Germany has shown its willingness to become a permanent member of the Security Council if the required reforms will be adopted by the United Nations. Apparently the German government does not view the CFSP as sufficient.
A number of problems, however, are connected with this policy as well:
・There is resistance by some UN member countries because the number of permanent members in the Security Council would be increased by an another EU country, in addition to France and the UK. This would not only create internal frictions concerning the future development of the EU since it would run counter to the vision to create a "single EU actor," but it would also cause external difficulties for the EU with other UN member states. They can ask why, if the development of common policies is being attempted even within the UN, Germany is promoting an increase in the number of permanent EU members in the Security Council. Does this not, in the view of other states, disproportionately increase Western Europe's influence in the UN in comparison to other powers? Beyond this, one can expect that other European countries (e.g. Italy) would then have less of a chance to become a non-permanent member of the Security Council due to changes regarding regionally proportional representation. This is one of the reasons why the envisaged UN reform, in particular of the Security Council, has still difficulties to perform.
・EU states could transfer the responsibility of EU representation to the Presidency of the EU. This option would, however, require an unreasonable change of the UN Charter. In order to give the Security Council the necessary freedom of action, it consists of independent states not bound on decisions of other fora. In addition, because of the current EU practice of a biannual change in the chairmanship, unnecessary disruption would be brought into the Security Council. Such a move is only sensible if the organization of EU states' decision-making processes for foreign and security policy is also transformed into a state-like structure. This decision, if not paralleled by a more rigid organization of the EU decision making process, would prevent a continuous and effective representation of European interests in the Security Council. It is also unlikely that the permanent members of the Security Council would agree to such a transformation.
