Reforming the UN Security Council: A Theoretical and Empirical Case for Nigerian Permanent Membership

This dissertation theoretically and empirically develops a comprehensive case for the reform of the UN Security Council's permanent membership to include Nigeria, contributing original theory on the constitutional foundations and normative justifications for Security Council reform in international law. The Security Council's permanent membership structure, unchanged since 1945, has been criticised as anachronistic and unrepresentative in a multipolar world where the African continent lacks permanent membership despite contributing the largest proportion of peacekeeping troops and being most frequently affected by peace and security Council decisions. Drawing on theories of international institutional law, constitutionalism, representation, and collective security governance, this research develops an original representational legitimacy framework that articulates the normative and legal criteria for Security Council permanent membership claims. It fills a critical gap in the UN reform literature by providing the first rigorous application of international law theory to Africa's Security Council permanent membership claim, moving beyond political advocacy to legal argument. The dissertation empirically assesses Nigeria's candidacy against the representational legitimacy criteria developed, comparing it with competing African candidates. It analyses the legal mechanisms available for Security Council expansion under Article 108 of the UN Charter and identifies the political and legal barriers to reform. Findings indicate that Nigeria meets the proposed representational legitimacy criteria and that a compelling legal case for African permanent membership exists. Original contributions include the representational legitimacy framework and an original treaty amendment pathway for Security Council reform. Keywords: UN Security Council, reform, permanent membership, Nigeria, international institutional law.