Selective Humanitarian Interventions, Structural flaws and UNSC Reforms: A critique of UNSC Approach towards Syria

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.