Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

Dedicated to Norms or Interests? A Comparative Case Study of the United Nations Security Council Reactions in Authorizing Humanitarian Intervention in the Rwandan and Sudanese Genocides
by Matthews, Danielle Tianne, M.A., Webster University, 2013, 105; 1523364
Abstract (Summary)

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.

Indexing (document details)
Advisor: Algieri, Franco
Commitee:
School: Webster University
School Location: United States -- Missouri
Source: MAI 52/01M(E), Masters Abstracts International
Source Type: DISSERTATION
Subjects: African Studies, International law
Keywords:
Publication Number: 1523364
ISBN: 9781303215285
Copyright © 2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Cookie Policy
ProQuest