Abstract In times of crises the world tends to look to the people who might have an influence over the situation and who could solve the issue which is affecting the lives of thousands or millions of people. After the creation of the United Nations, the Secretary-General, the administrative head of the organization, is usually believed to be the one who could influence the terms of wars in one way or another as the UN was created to prevent the atrocities of the First and Second World War. In terms of the UN Charter, the main responsible for keeping the international peace and security is the Security Council, but the Secretary-General had and has an important contribution towards the ending of wars and conflicts. His ‘good offices’ and influence over the actions of states, as well as the vision over the peacekeeping mechanism was of great importance during and after the Cold War. If Dag Hammarskjöld is the one considered to have placed the basis for the peacekeeping mechanism, Kurt Waldheim is the one who continued his work and developed it during the Détente period. The present article intends to analyze if the Secretary-General does have a say in solving international crises or not by analyzing a case study of the implication Kurt Waldheim in the 1973-1974 crises of Middle East.
Gabriel Zvîncă (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: