ABSTRACT
The Panel's proposals purport to change policy without altering the constitutional status of the permanent members within the United Nations (UN) and without providing capabilities and institutional procedures to make their recommendations assume a meaningful political character. The only way that the Security Council could be empowered to implement the proposal in regards to extended claims of self-defense is to deny the availability of the veto to permanent members. The argument being made is based on an acknowledgement of the need for UN reform, while trying to rid the quest of false expectations and empty rhetoric. A basic distinction needs to be drawn between horizons of feasibility and horizons of desire. Horizons of feasibility refer to those adaptations needed to make the organization effective and legitimate within its existing framework, that is, with an acceptance of the normative incoherence associated with the tension between the Charter as law and geopolitics as practice.
