Aim: The aim of this study is to analyse the possible motives behind the actions of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in relation to the conflict in Syria. The background of this aim is the Arab Spring and the protests and violence that have followed the uprising. While, in Libya, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions that allowed sanctions against the Libyan government, no such resolutions have been adopted yet in Syria.Theory: The principal theory of the analysis is Stephen D. Krasner´s theory on sovereignty.Method: I have researched various resolutions and statements done in the Security Council, together with official statements from the actors, through Hadenius´ motive analysis methodology and Gilje & Grimen and Ödmans theories on hermeneutics.Conclusion: The conclusion of the analysis is that there, in the case of Syria and Libya, are two different parties in the Security Council. One that stands for sovereignty and one that stands for intervention. By applying Krasner´s theory to the empirical material it could however be shown that the actions of both parties are formed to a higher degree by the strategic interests of the countries. The norms of sovereignty and intervention are thus secondary to the interests of the countries, in explaining the motives in international relations.
展开▼
