United Nations Security Council Resolution

At the end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, the Security Council passed Resolution 687, which set out the terms that Iraq’s leader Suddam Hussein was to comply with. The resolution required the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and required Iraq to submit to a rigorous UN inspection system. Inspections were conducted by United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and later the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) throughout the 1990s to the US-led invasion 2003. The UNSC has proved to be an effective legal response to monitoring conflict and maintaining world order as no ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were found after the American invasion in 2003.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more

This solution will eradicate mass murders and even out the distribution of land. Intifadas and suicide bombing have taken the lives of many innocent Israelis and Palestinians. In fact, “Since 1944, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have dispatched more than 80 suicide bombers. The terrorist have blown up buses in major Israeli cities, as well as shopping malls, cafes, and other civilian targets” (Doc. #5). Hamas had the same goal as the PLO; destroying Israel and creating a Palestinian state. It’s important to realize that Hamas and the PLO’s main motive was not to eliminate other civilians, but in order to gain their property back for their fellow Palestinians. Many of these suicide bombings could have been prevented if a two-state solution was established, which would have left both parties untroubled. Unfortunately, we have seen intifadas start to rise in Israel, which have caused more deaths in the country. In detail, more than 8,184 Palestinians were killed after the 2 intifadas, and more than 1,581 Israelis were killed after the uprisings (Doc. #7). Some might say that the Palestinians started the rebellion by these killings, and therefore the conflict istheir fault. But if the world and the Quartet (EU, U.S, U.N and Russia) decided on a multi-state resolution, they could have stopped the conflicts. More than 9,765 people died all because of the international community not providing help by splitting up

-Quartet of Middle east— recognizes Israel but also wants Palestinian to have their own state. They struggle to find a way for peace. There are different resolutions that have been suggested such as the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Road map for peace, Camp David Summit 2000, etc. but it all failed.

The 1948 War set the stage for long-term conflict in the Middle East, because even after Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, the surrounding Arab

A popular and most recent debate has been whether Israel should exist as a state. Currently, Israel is the only country in the world that has a relatively extensive Jewish population. More recently, Israel has been combatting against Palestinian soldiers in Gaza to prevent attacks on Israel coming from the Palestinian Government. This war has gone on for quite some time now; for years, actually. But how did this conflict develop? It certainly didn’t happen overnight.

Over the last decade, the idea of the Security Council going under reform has caused much of a debate. Academics have been questioning whether the Security Council has been fulfilling its duties and obligations under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations . Another question, which arises frequently, is whether it is accountable and legitimate. The combinations of these effectively show whether the Security Council is fit for purpose in the 21st Century.

The War of 1948, also known as the War of Independence, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The war began May 15, 1948 when units from the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq invaded Israel launching a war that lasted until December 1948.# The war resulted in the defeat of the Arab forces and the success of Israel as a newly established state. It is evident that the Arab forces were not successful in the first Arab-Israeli war because the Arab army lacked motivation, education, and proper equipment.# Despite the support from Arab states outside of Palestine, the Arabs were unable to gain enough strength to overcome the Israeli forces. In contrast, the Israeli army was able to succeed because they had

For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.

Keeping these thoughts in mind I will investigate some key issues that affect the progress towards peace in the region including the relationship that exists between the United States and Israel; the 2002 Road Map to Peace and why it failed; and finally the effect of Arafat?s death and the implications for the future.

After more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever. The entire Middle Eastern region remains a cauldron waiting to reach the boiling point, a potent mixture of religious extremism, (Jewish, Christian and Islamic), mixed with oil and munitions.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

Since the early 20th Century, Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. With the assumption that Palestine is a state to facilitate discussion, this report sketches out the most significant elements of the conflict on the three levels defined by Kenneth Waltz, and applies the Realist theory of international relations (IR) to the “Two-State” solution.

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.