The United Nations (UN) has adopted effective resolutions since its foundation, particularly
during 1990’s, for the sake of promotion and protection of global peace and
security. Especially following the UN’s firm stance for the Yugoslavia crisis, the hopes
for global peace have remarkably raised. The Cold Was had come to the end and the
states from the opposite alliance blocks of the Cold War were enabled to make decisions
altogether in order to protect global peace. In the UN Security Council’s practice, even
the idea that the concept of “positive peace,” which regards the internal peace of states as
a matter to be addressed by international community, could substitute the concept of “negative
peace,” which implies the peace situation only among states and does not regard
internal peace of states because of the main principle of non-intervention enacted in Article
2/7 of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, these hopes could not last long. As Russia could
gather its strength after a short while, the decision-making mechanism of the international
community became solely interest-based once again. In this article, the author is trying to
examine the question whether the UN Security Council has endorsed the concept of “positive
peace” or “negative peace” while its approach to Mali case, which is a remarkable
international crisis occurred in 2000’s.
the United Nations Security Council international peace international humanitarian law cultural property Security Council
BM Güvenlik Konseyi uluslararası barış uluslararası insancıl hukuk kültür valıkları Güvenlik Konseyi
Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
---|---|
Bölüm | Araştırmalar ve İncelemeler |
Yazarlar | |
Yayımlanma Tarihi | 27 Haziran 2018 |
Kabul Tarihi | 27 Haziran 2018 |
Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2018 Sayı: 11 - Bahar |