The presence of the international community has become increasingly evident and necessary in the management of International Conflict. Many protocols and acts have been established in which outline legal and moral obligations for intervention in times of international crises. This effectiveness of these interventions in managing conflict is however questionable for numerous reasons. The establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945, now including international conflict, however this becomes difficult due to the differing ideologies of governments, ethnicities, religions and nation-interests of national states. The international community has sought out many measures in order to deal with international conflict, however the effectiveness
…show more content…
Due to this, we are unlikely to live in a conflict-free world due to the different interests of nation-states. (TB) If not all, many nation-states only pursue actions with their own national interests at heart. These national-interests are based on the relationships certain nation-states have with others as well as the economic and political benefits nation-states will gain from intervention. One reason why the international response to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was ineffective was because of the limited national-interests involved in intervention, particularly that of the United States. (Bachman) The lack of public support and political pressure of peacekeeping missions in the USA is part of the reason for a lack of intervention. The genocide did not directly affect the US socially or economically, even though it had and moral and political obligation to do so. (Ebelshäuser) When referring to the genocide the US avoided naming it a Genocide as that would mean it was obligated to act under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. The delayed/inactive response in Rwanda and of other genocides cannot however be blamed entirely on the failure of the international community. The poor international response in Rwanda is also due to the nature of Genocide and the difficulties and ambiguity in its definition. Genocides are carefully planned and so for long amounts of time, the violent acts involved in Genocide are concealed from the media, and so international response is therefore
Due to this, we are unlikely to live in a conflict-free world due to the different interests of nation-states. (TB) If not all, many nation-states only pursue actions with their own national interests at heart. These national-interests are based on the relationships certain nation-states have with others as well as the economic and political benefits nation-states will gain from intervention. One reason why the international response to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was ineffective was because of the limited national-interests involved in intervention, particularly that of the United States. (Bachman) The lack of public support and political pressure of peacekeeping missions in the USA is part of the reason for a lack of intervention. The genocide did not directly affect the US socially or economically, even though it had and moral and political obligation to do so. (Ebelshäuser) When referring to the genocide the US avoided naming it a Genocide as that would mean it was obligated to act under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. The delayed/inactive response in Rwanda and of other genocides cannot however be blamed entirely on the failure of the international community. The poor international response in Rwanda is also due to the nature of Genocide and the difficulties and ambiguity in its definition. Genocides are carefully planned and so for long amounts of time, the violent acts involved in Genocide are concealed from the media, and so international response is therefore