National Statement of Germany on the L69 model during the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, 15 February 2024

15.02.2024 - Speech

The statement was delivered by Ambassador Thomas Zahneisen, Deputy Permanent Representative.

Distinguished, Co-Chairs, colleagues,

At the outset, I wish to reaffirm Germany’s full support for your approach, Co-Chairs, to discuss individual models during this session of the IGN.

It offers us the opportunity to delve deeper into each other's perspectives and to uncover common grounds.

We look forward to the presentation of our own G4-model in the forthcoming session of the IGN.

My sincere gratitude goes to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for presenting the L.69 model today. We see a lot of convergence.

An enhanced role and presence of developing countries in the Security Council will, no doubt, improve the ability of the Council to respond to the multiple, complex, ever evolving challenges the contemporary world faces on questions of international peace and security.

As a consequence, we, Germany, lend our support to the expansion across both membership categories, permanent and non-permanent, as proposed by L.69.

Given the proximity of the L.69 model to that of the G4, we are earnestly exploring avenues to bridge the remaining disparities.

In our assessment, these disparities primarily revolve around the issues of veto power and the cross-regional representation of SIDS and developing states.

Hence, I would like to pose three questions:

First, on the veto.

Germany endorses initiatives to limit the use of veto, such as the “Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity“ initiated by France and Mexico, as well as the ”Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.”

We understand that the L.69 wants to keep the veto power “unfetted” of the Council. We are keen to learn more if your model incorporates – or would allow for - measures to limit veto use for all permanent members of a future expansion.

My second and third questions are on the cross-regional representation. We believe this is an interesting idea which definitely merits further consideration.

We would like to seek clarification regarding the election process for non-permanent members of a cross-regional group like the SIDS.

My two rather technical questions in this regard:

Could countries belonging to SIDS be elected both within their regional group and a new SIDS group? Or is membership mutually exclusive?

How should we interpret the coordination process aimed at ensuring consistent representation for small developing states? How can their representation be guaranteed in practice?


we wanted to ask for clarification on the “review of the implementation” – but this has been already been answered by you, Ambassador King, during your presentation.

Once again, I would like to thank L.69 for the presentation of their model today and commend the Co-Chairs for providing the platform to deliberate on these invaluable reform models in this structured and interactive format.

Thank you.

Top of page