Vilka är aktörerna som påverkar agendan för en reformering av FN:s säkerhetsråd

Sammanfattning: Within the United Nations, the need for reforms of the Security Council has been debated for a long time. The purpose here is to examine the various coalitions of Member States that support the proposals that have been presented and the arguments for the need of a reform. The theoretical starting point will be John W. Kingdon's policy theory on how agendas are set. As primary sources official documents from the UN are used where resolutions and draft resolutions in the General Assembly as well as reports from various working groups are the main sources. The issue of the Security Council's reform was on the agenda with a resolution of the General Assembly in 1992. The lack of representativeness of the UNSC is a recurring main argument for a reform. On the question of what different coalitions of Member States it is that has presented the reform proposals, we can see that several of the coalition’s consist of developing countries, small states but also developed countries with stronger economies. Of the more prominent and recurrent, mention should be made of the G4 countries, the African group, the L69 group, the Uniting for Consensus and the Non-Aligned Movement. Kingdon's theory is in some parts also applicable to an international organization such as the UN, but not in all parts. There is an identified awareness of the problem and a conviction of the need for change, but his theory about how different types of interest groups affect the solution proposals is not supported.