How did you come to study the evolution of change within the UN Security Council (UNSC)?

Initially, my interest in multilateralism was born out of the innovative thinking at the end of the WWII of how we organise and structure peace. As someone who is favourable of multilateralism, which is not selective but open to various political and cultural legacies, I got inevitably interested in the work of the UN as the world organisation. Although at first I was more interested in the question of reform of the UNSC composition, I think it was my engagement with the practice of diplomacy that eventually made me more aware of the significance of the diplomatic process itself and of procedural issues. Having the chance to practice multilateral diplomacy at the UN and take part in several multilateral processes and negotiations, I could really appreciate the key role of people, of the practice of diplomacy, and of its productive side in making multilateral outcomes be. The awareness that IOs and multilateral outcomes are made in and through numerous interactions within the broader diplomatic community set me firmly towards investigating diplomatic process and IO procedure by using practice theoretical insights. This brought me to the question of the UNSC’s working methods and the less visible effort of changing the UNSC in and through practice, via its working methods.

Can you describe your thesis questions and the methodology you use to approach those questions?

With practice-tracing as a method, I sought to answer the following research question: How are practices used by different actors and under which conditions are those successful in producing institutional change of the UNSC?

To accomplish the first task of practice tracing, I used praxiographic research strategies of following controversies and objects and focusing on structure-making sites, while the data collection drew primarily on document analysis and expert interviews. My entry points were the UNSC’s working methods, which, although known as Note 507, in reality consist of a much broader set of documents with varying degrees of formality that can take the form of notes, presidential statements and resolutions. Content analysis of these documents helped me detail which UNSC working methods exist, what they regulate, and when they were established, i.e. codified in writing, whereas additional interviews with practitioners revealed what those working methods actually enable in practice and what they mean from practitioners’ point of view. 

The detailed content analysis of the integral compendium of practice of the UNSC distinguishes my research from all existing accounts of the UNSC’s working methods, which rely predominantly on the general knowledge of the overall process of codification. My PhD thesis is indeed the first research effort to offer a systematic and in-depth account of what those working methods actually codify and what is the net effect for the UNSC — or, to use historical institutionalism language, of the actual transformation those incremental changes have achieved in practice. 

Conceptually, and with a view to fulfilling the second objective of practice tracing — producing general knowledge and making conversation with other cases possible — I sought to specify the key elements of the historical institutionalism understanding of how gradual change happens: (1) the content of political struggles, (2) the actors included, and (3) the timing and linearity of the incrementalism of change. 

What are your major findings?

The systematic review of the UNSC’s working methods confronted me with an unexpected empirical reality, that of a Council that is very different from how it is commonly portrayed. 

Empirically, I make two major observations. First, there has been an actual readjustment of the relationship between the five permanent members (P5) and the ten elected members (E10) at the UNSC core, notably by an informal extension of the E10’s mandate beyond the formal two-year tenure and the development of supportive practices that curb the negative effects of the permanency. And second, there has been a permanent, institutionalised and issue-specific extension of the UNSC composition in peacekeeping matters, namely through the inclusion of troop-contributing countries (TCCs) in the Council’s decision-making process at both the political and the operational levels.

Theoretically, I propose a novel type of institutional change: institutional stretch(ing), which I conceive as both an outcome and a process. As an outcome, it encompasses not only informally changing the IO procedure, but also redesigning the IO de facto composition by layering new membership configurations which can be more or less formalised, ad hoc or permanent, generalised or issue specific. By stretching beyond what formal rules allow, IOs can respond to evolving realities and include relevant actors. As a process, I show how change making routinely happens beyond formal IO borders within a broader IO ecosystem of relevant actors created by the IO community of practitioners and their practices. While renegotiating contested IO properties on an ongoing basis, actors within the IO ecosystem use resources such as legitimacy, troops, money, and knowledge to become important players within the battles for bigger access.

What could be the political implications of your thesis?

My research makes it visible that in IOs where formal reform is blocked, informal processes of change can be much more prevalent, even at the level of the IO composition. It is really staggering to see that the IO with the most deeply contested composition among IOs, which has kept generations of diplomats engaged in the never-ending efforts to agree upon a formal reform of the Council’s composition, has in fact been altering this very composition informally, as if it is some minor issue. This has important ramifications for the broader issues of power, institutional design, authority and legitimacy.

At the level of the UNSC, I make evident that the P5 share power much more substantially than generally assumed and that the E10 and the broader diplomatic community have much more agency than usually acknowledged. By uncovering the existent informal power-sharing arrangements and de facto membership configurations, I show how the net result of those informal changes actually reduces the power of the most powerful IO members by pushing them to share power even on the most fundamental IO policies, and even when it comes to the core IO decision-making structures. 

This of course nuances the broader discussion regarding the reform of the UNSC. Although most of the debate evolves around the need to formally redesign the Council, notably by changing its composition, including by adding more elected members as a way to remedy its disbalanced power structure, my research shows that the said structure has already been shifting by mostly informal practices. While formal change remains the preferred option, the fact that the UNSC responds informally to the demands for change is not irrelevant. On the one hand, it adds much needed legitimacy to the IO in the face of continuing contesting dynamics. On the other hand, it makes it visible that hierarchical power structures can be disrupted under a persistent formal status quo and shows which key practices practitioners can use as a vehicle of change. 

More generally, I open the door to the idea that these layered structures may be more prevalent among IOs arriving at a certain age, especially when their composition is contested and considered more in tune with the post-WWII balance of power.  

*     *     *

On 11 February 2025, Anamarija Andreska (second from the left) defended with summa cum laude her PhD thesis in International Relations/Political Science, titled “Institutional Stretch(ing): The Informally Changing Composition of the UNSC”. Professor Annabelle Littoz-Monnet (right) presided over the committee, which included Professor Stephanie Hofmann (left), Thesis Director, and, as External Reader, Emeritus Professor Nano Ruzin, Dean of Political Science, American University of Europe FON, Skopje.

Citation of the PhD thesis:
Andreska, Anamarija. “Institutional Strech(ing): The Informally Changing Composition of the UNSC.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2025.
For more information, interested parties can contact Anamarija Andreska.

Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.
Banner image: Shutterstock/lev radin.