Route 1 Charter’s primary responsibility for peace and security → only organ whose decisions bind → but structure decides when those powers can be used

Route 2 composition settled in 1945, veto sitting inside it → structure and functions are not two lists but one relation

15 members: 5 permanent + nuclear-armed / 10 non-permanent, GA-elected, two-year terms → veto blocks substantive decision = “Great Power unanimity” → functions from persuasion to force: settle peacefully / principles of settlement / mediation / SG investigation → ceasefire → peacekeeping troops or observers with consent → decisions bind, enforceable by sanctions or force under collective security (aggression against one = assault on all) → but powers move only on P5 agreement: Korea 1950 (only because USSR was boycotting), Kuwait 1991 → paralysis when interests clash: Cold War, Rwanda, Bosnia, Syria, Ukraine → same structure breeds the critique: no permanent seat for Africa or Latin America, “secretive and undemocratic” → Edward Luck: credibility ← membership tracking geopolitical and demographic shifts → G4 / Ezulwini / L69

the flaws are not a case against the Council → they mark the reforms it needs, not its uselessness

Route 1 functions are wide, but work only as the structure allows → Vajpayee: the UN is as effective as members allow

Route 2 composition and veto are the precondition for function → until they change, the Council acts only where the great powers already agree