Joe O'Reilly: Article 109 - A Real Path to UN Reform
Joe O'Reilly questions how the United States, China and Russia can be brought on side for meaningful UN Charter reform and highlights Article 109 as a procedural route to a review conference. He argues that while charter amendments require P5 support, a review conference can be convened without a veto and that momentum for change often comes from the wider UN membership.
Pathway under Article 109
Joe O'Reilly explains that Article 109 establishes two stages: a review conference can be called by a two-thirds General Assembly vote and nine Security Council members, and that procedural resolution cannot be vetoed. He stresses that a review could identify what works and what needs updating in the UN Charter.
P5 dynamics and historical precedent
He acknowledges that any binding amendment needs the support of all permanent members, but notes the P5 are not homogenous and that past charter changes were driven by majority momentum and negotiation beyond the P5. He warns reform is complicated by regional rivalries and competing claims.
What Ireland can do
O'Reilly highlights Ireland's longstanding record of multilateral advocacy and argues Ireland can champion a fairer, more equitable and representative UN. He urges small and mid-size states to build cross-regional coalitions to shape a credible review process.
Coalition-building and next steps
He describes the Article 109 coalition as cross-regional, combining big and small states, and calls for developing a group of friends in the UN to drive a review forward. He frames the review conference as the forum to discuss permanency, veto powers and the balance between the Security Council and General Assembly.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thank you Chair for that facilitation. We have a delegation in from Europe, so just to meet them, but thank you, appreciate that. Welcome to our guests and thank you for your presentations. My first question concerns the great powers, the United States, China and Russia. If there is to be meaningful change, we would need these powers on side, however by definition that change and that shift would take away their existing vetoes, their existing powers. So how do we get them on side? How do we go about working with them to bring about change when in fact the change would not be in their best interest? That's question one. I'll ask you a sequence. Super, great. Senator, thank you very much for beginning with a very important question around charter renewal. I should say that under article 109 of the charter, there are two stages with respect to that process. To conduct a review conference, this requires a vote in the General Assembly enjoyed by two-thirds of the membership and any nine out of the 15 of the UN Security Council members. So to hold a review conference cannot be blocked and it's not subject to a veto, it's a procedural resolution. So there is a pathway to conduct a review conference of the charter to say what is working and what we would like to develop and to enhance with respect to the charter. Senator, you're absolutely right in terms of the second part which is for any changes to the charter to take effect. Again, this must enjoy the support of two-thirds of the UN General Assembly and support by all P5 members and that can be seen as an obstacle. What I would like to say is several points. The first is that the permanent members of the Security Council are not a homogenous group and I think it would be wrong to say that we shouldn't proceed on this process because it may be blocked by a member of the P5 and in fact history has shown that every time there's been a change or revision to the charter, whether that's in terms of extension of the UN Security Council membership with respect to membership including for Ireland which I know was blocked in 1946 by the then Soviet Union and subsequently negotiated through, that momentum has come from outside the P5 membership, so from the majority and then there's a process of negotiation. So I would say that for some of these P5 members and for all in fact, they have to recognize that they are operating in a system which they do enjoy privileges and to maintain those privileges should they wish to have some element of that then it is in their interest to open up to reform. Now if a proposal has been put down for the abolition of the veto you could rightly argue that perhaps they may not be putting up the yes vote for that but I think there's many areas and many aspects in relation to the charter which I hope we will be able to expand and extend on which you know can go beyond that and I think it'll be, it's the will and the negotiations that will be my, if I can move and I should have said at the outset there's a clear need for reform but to move it, reform is complicated by regional conflicts for example India versus Pakistan, Japan versus China, Germany versus Italy etc etc and obviously competing claims in Africa and the Middle East, we don't need to go there for so many competing difficulties there. So given these mutually exclusive positions, what objective criteria for a selection mechanism do you believe could command broad legitimacy for determining the new permanent members? You know how would you achieve a consensus around the permanent members given that? Thank you. Again I should begin by saying Article 109 as a coalition we are reform agnostic so we are advocating for fulfilling a promise that was made in 1945 when the charter was drafted but we are not advocating for a specific cause whether that's expansion or abolition of the veto or greater powers for the General Assembly but that said you highlight a very important element which is there's a lot of geopolitics at play in this space and everyone will have slightly different positions around permanency and non-permanency. I think what we would be advocating for is what does good global governance look like today and what does that mean for the kind of the superior body which is this UN Security Council to operate effectively and in a timely manner and there's rightly those questions to be asked should anyone be granted a permanent veto power in those cases or not and how should and what powers should other bodies such as the General Assembly to be had and I think these are exactly the types of conversations I hope that a review conference could help us. Yeah just suppose Ireland were to implement or trigger a US Article 109 what role do you see us playing in the reshaping of the UN Assembly and other specific areas who would wish to see Ireland champion and use its influence for a you know you've said what you don't want to happen so what could we do of merit? Well I mean I have two others so I'll be very quick. Ireland has a track record of advocating and championing multilateralism for the 71 years it's been a member and I think it can play an important incredible role. It's demonstrated that through its UN Security Council membership, through its Human Rights Council membership, so what I would like Ireland to be advocating for is a more fairer more equitable and more representative UN that delivers for peace and security for all peoples around the world and I think this is a space that you at Ireland as a small nation can work with many partners not just in Europe but across the global south to deliver. Yeah I'd love to agree with you and I hope you're right and that's where we all stand but just to ask you the questions you cite Brazil, India, South Africa and others as supporting charter review. Now is it are they a loose coalition who have their own self-interest or is there any common platform among them yet? I think two things a vote on to hold article 109 conference actually took place in 1955 and at that point the majority of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council called for a review of the UN Charter but a decision was taken to wait for more auspicious occasions so I think the commitment was made by the majority of the UN membership in 1955 and you're right to consider are these some of these countries are they in there to sort of advocate and champion multilateralism or is there a specific interest that in particular they're looking for in terms of that membership. This coalition is just a list of countries that have delivered that support what 109 and the coalition is working for is to bring together a cross-regional group of countries big and small to work together to really shape and drive this and I hope that over time we'll develop a group of friends of some sort in the UN to do that and take that forward and I very much hope Ireland will be part of that.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
