The Darfur Crisis : Why has the World not acted ?

Exposé Politique & international Relations internationales

Date de publication :

15/01/2008

Langue :

Anglais

Format :

.doc

Nombre de pages :

10 pages

Niveau :

avancé

Consulté :

3 fois

Avis client :

non évalué

Validé par :

le comité Oboulo.com

9,95 € Ajouter au panier

Sommaire :

Sommaire

Historical background, understanding the conflict
1. Early History and the roots of the conflict
2. The Darfur crisis
The International Response, the failure to intervene
1. The ineffectual forces of the AMIS
2. A UN engagement?
Trying to understand the reasons of the world's passivity
1. The unwillingness of the International community to recognize its responsibilities
2. The reasons of the non-implication of the members of the International Community

Résumé :

"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". Based on this article 39 of the United Nation charter, throughout the 1990's, the Security Council has increasingly defined, gross human rights abuses as threats to international peace and security. According to the international Law, States are sovereign, which mean that they control their territory, their population and that no other nation should intervene in its internal affairs. However, under the 1948 Genocide Convention, adopted by the United Nation General Assembly, sovereignty is not a barrier to intervention. The first article stands that "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish". The second article qualified the Genocide as "any attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group". Despite this convention allowing for UN military action on genocide, and reports that senior UN officials and US government were aware of what was happening, in 1994, no significant intervention was led in Rwanda to stop the Genocide.
Since 2003, a civil war is tearing darfur. However how long did it take to become a topic in news report? For a long time, people were aware from time to time that something was happening in Sudan, but nobody was really sure of what; the International community did not seem to really care. After different investigations, it became clear that ethnic cleansings were happening. So why did the international community remain passive? The major issue is thus to try to understand why the world is just watching to what is happening in darfur without acting. Many commentators qualify the atrocities perpetrated in darfur of genocide, as well as the American government. The United Nations refuse to do so. Following the definition of genocide previously given, at a first glance, the qualification seems to depict the situation in darfur, as a group is trying to eradicate another one. But the reality of this conflict is much more complicated. The first step leading to the understanding of the darfur's crisis is the explanation of the roots of the conflict. Once the clarifications done, it will be important to highlight what has been the response of the International community to help darfur to finally raise the final issue: why have this response been so weak?