ABSTRACT
The Security Council, from its very inception, has been controversial. In part, this has stemmed from the prevalent perception that the Council has been the one place in the UN system that really matters. In part, it has derived from the pervasive frustration that the Council has never fulfilled the overly high expectations many people and governments have had for it. And, importantly, it reflects an unresolved tension between the sharply but somewhat narrowly defined concept the convening powers had for how the Council should function and the more inclusive and participatory model favored by the UN’s larger membership. These differences were as vigorously contested at the founding conference in San Francisco as they have been in the successive rounds of deliberations on Council reform that have since absorbed so much high-level attention in capitals as well as in the General Assembly Hall.
