This study examines the global political dynamics underlying the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 's failure to enforce resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The primary focus of the research is how the political interests of permanent members of the UN Security Council, particularly the use of veto, affect the resolution enforcement process and its impact on peace in the region. Using qualitative-descriptive methods and a study of the current literature, the study found that the dominance of national politics and international disagreement has led to stagnation in conflict resolution and prolonged humanitarian crises in Gaza and the West Bank. In addition, the use of vetoes by the United States, as Israel's main ally, has blocked many resolutions that could potentially improve the humanitarian situation, despite international consensus on the protection of civilians. These findings underscore the need to reform the UN Security Council mechanism, emphasizing the importance of fairness and inclusivity in multilateral decision-making. This research also contributes to the understanding of international institutional design, proposing a new approach that is more responsive to global conflicts involving the strategic interests of large countries. Overall, the results of this study provide recommendations for reform of the UNSC veto mechanism and emphasize the urgency of fairer multilateral diplomacy in international law enforcement.
Agussalim et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: