<p>This thesis addresses the role of geopolitical interests in the voting record of the UNSC (UNSC) in authorizing action, specifically humanitarian intervention, in the cases of genocide in Rwanda and Sudan. The classic theories of international relations, realism and liberalism, are applied to determine which theory has higher explanatory power in determining the level of involvement and humanitarian intervention by the UNSC in these specific cases. Realist assumptions would expect that the possible economic or strategic interests of states within the Council would influence the level of involvement or humanitarian intervention authorized. In contrast, liberalist notions would expect that the level of conflict severity or duration would determine the level of involvement or humanitarian intervention authorized. This thesis finds that the economic and strategic interests of the members of the UNSC can serve as a better indicator in determining the level of intervention authorized in these cases. Thus, realist theory holds higher explanatory power of the UNSC reactions to the cases of Rwanda and Sudan. </p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PROQUEST/oai:pqdtoai.proquest.com:1523364 |
| Date | 12 October 2013 |
| Creators | Matthews, Danielle Tianne |
| Publisher | Webster University |
| Source Sets | ProQuest.com |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | thesis |
Page generated in 0.2523 seconds