The 65th General Assembly of theUnited Nations ended last month aftera two weeks long hustle and bustlein New York. This assembly became acenter of attention because of remarksmade by some of the member representatives.Leaders ranted their positionsand their faces made the news.And as always, the issue of makingSecurity Council a representative anda democratic offshoot of UN was lost.Kofi Annan, former UN SecretaryGeneral, throughout his term kept onemphasizing on setting out rules forusing military force which became amajor concern specifically during andafter the Iraq war. ‘Reform in UN is incompletewithout reform of the SecurityCouncil,’ he kept on reiterating ashe wanted the Security Council to bebroadly representative of the realitiesof power in the world. Ten years downthe road Annan’s concern attached tothe Security Council is still at the samespot, unmoved.Professor Ben Saul beautifully andprecisely records the current crisis oflegitimacy of the Security Council. Heopines, “The Council already suffersfrom legitimacy problems because ofits politicized selectivity in addressingsome conflicts but not others, withactions distorted by the veto power ofthe permanent five” (Asian Journal ofComparative Law, October 6, 2008).This situation on the whole hasraised some pertinent questions. Is UNfulfilling the responsibility bestowedby the world? Is Security Council theproper authority for making decisionson controversial matters or has it to belimited to intervention? Would UN beenhanced or seize to function, in itstrue spirit, when the Security Councilgets criticized for the interest leadintervention? Before we plunge intothe possible answers to the questionsof legitimacy, intervention and the roleof UN, let us observe some of the humanitarianintervention mess in thelast decade.The UN interventions in Somalia in1993, Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in1995 are all perceived as too late andpoorly executed. UN intervention inKosovo is considered as a completefailure for not being to save minoritiesunder its nose. These events of limitedsuccess/ failure of the United Nationshave nothing to do with the organizationalcommitment to humanitarianintervention, but interest focused approachof the Permanent Fives (P5).United Nations General Assemblymembers, who have considerable influenceover the P5, are accountable aswell, but without their ability to voteout the permanent members from theSecurity Council, they are mere spectators.The responsibilities are generallybestowed upon Security Councilthat requires instant actions to executethem in timely manner.Security Council as main body hasthe power to exert pressure and if required,use military power. But theSecurity Council, which is mostlydivided, and acts generally as per theinterest of the permanent fives, mightnot be the proper channel, at least, todetermine the need of military interventionin the present world order.If the Security Council is losing itslegitimacy as seen by Professor Saul,the fundamental flaw of P5, that israising questions against the overallstructure of United Nations, has to befixed. By fix, I am hinting at the overallre-conceptualization of the SecurityCouncil binding it responsible tothe UN General Assembly making ita democratic offshoot of the UnitedNations. It might be a far-fetched idea,but Security Council at present has almostbecome like a totalitarian worldgovernment that has unconstrainedpower and is free to use it, or not useit, even though the General Assemblymight find it totally unjustifiable later.Looking at the historical and thecurrent divisions of members in termsof dealing only with selective issues orcountries, it is hard to believe that theywould act leaving their own interests.Thus, there has to be some kind ofmechanism within the UN itself thatwhen the executive body fails, the legislativebody should have some powerto question on its performance and itsintention. If required, the General Assemblywith majority should have theauthority to release the related memberfrom its responsibility and seek anothercompetent member to fulfillthe position.Unless the countries are judgedthrough their merit, instead of theirhistorical positions on nuclear abilities,leaving the right to determinethe intervention factor on the SecurityCouncil would be an error. But if theSecurity Council is limited to an executivefunctions, it might enhance thefuture of UN and its authenticity. LimitingSecurity Council within executivefunction would help quell the legitimacyquestion though it limits thepower of the Security Council dubbedby the UN Charter, Chapter VII article39. The Charter gives the Council immensepower for the military actionsand it exclusively decides whether otherpeaceful measures taken prior to themilitary action were adequate or not.Thus, in the absence of a decisivebody in the UN Systems that decidesand determines any military actions,an executive body, the Security Councilis also responsible for the judiciarywork. My basic contention is that theGeneral Assembly is in dire need ofa UN body to determine the militaryintervention. Judiciary and executiverole for the Security Council is nota healthy practice. Such uncheckedpower could be dangerous to the futureof United Nations.This scenario has scared some ofthe nations, especially after the Iraqwar. The invasion on Iraq, despiteUN’s mandate and the failure to findweapons of mass destruction, was carriedwithout a justification for militaryintervention by some members of theSecurity Council. This has establishedan environment of fear and doubt onthe so called ‘rouge nations,’ thus barringthe constructive stance towardsthe United Nations. The constructivecriticism is vital for the transformationanticipated within the UN. The severestiffness might result into the destructionof the overall UN Systems. Almostevery nation agrees for the overall reformin the Security Council, but asthe old story of cat and mice, it seemslike, no one is yet ready to bell the cat.