Análise da atuação do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas nos conflitos Líbio e Sírio

Abstract

Why has the United Nations Security Council approved a military intervention resolution in Libya and not in Syria? The debate over the civil war in these countries, starting in the Arab Spring, draws the attention of the international society in view of the seriousness and the dimension of the conflicts which impact not only at the regional level but also repercussions on the international scene with the direct participation of different actors. It is argued that the basis for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) response, approving the military intervention resolution in Libya, were shaped by the manipulation of interests and support among States (United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia and China, the P-5, in evidence) and other important factors who were interested in Gaddafi's removal from government and end of the conflict. On the other hand, the lack of consensus and the set of interests in relation to the Syrian case prevent the same action. It is intended to address this issue from the analysis of the decision-making process in the UNSC from the perspective of Peter Wallensteen (2002), relating his approach, which holds that the adoption of a resolution is directly associated with the disposition of the interests of the P-5, to the dynamics and conditions to which the cases fit. Using the hypothetical deductive method and the process-tracing procedure, we try to analyze the roles and interferences of the main actors involved, always focusing on issues related to the Security Council, which allowed and/or blocked their performance in the countries mentioned.