Abstract:
The research highlights the structural flaws in the UNSC and how these flaws render a
selective character to humanitarian interventions. The UNSC's ability to block any
resolution despite the intensity of the humanitarian crisis is the fundamental obstacle in
the effective management of the humanitarian crisis.The research delved into the Syrian
crisis which further reinforced the need for reforms in the UNSC. Reforms such as
limiting the use of veto power, increasing transparency, and strengthening the role of the
General Assembly would help to ensure that the UNSC is more effective in preventing
and resolving humanitarian crises. This study makes comparison of the UNSC's
responses to the humanitarian crises in Libya, Mali, and Syria which reveals that several
factors are crucial in determining whether or not the UNSC intervenes. The UNSC has
the responsibility to prevent and resolve humanitarian crises, but as a political body, its
decisions are influenced by the interests of its member states. This makes it difficult for
the UNSC to take decisive action, especially in cases where there are competing interests.
The research’s findings are based on a qualitative analysis of the existing scholarly work
and review of the literature that explore and understand selective humanitarian
interventions and UNSC structural flaws that contribute to the ineffectiveness as well as
failure to intervene in humanitarian crises.
