Mänsklig säkerhet eller suveränitet? En postkolonial studie av The Responsbility to Protect

The inability of the Security Council to consistently apply The Responsibility to Protect has drawn criticism towards the council, accusing it of a western bias. If true, this could prove a serious dent in the UN’s ambition to maintain international peace and security according to the seventh chapter of the UN charter. The aim of this study is to compare and analyze different conflicts in order to identify variables which could tell us something about a potential bias. Since the criticism has been voiced mainly by representatives of the “third world”, a postcolonial perspective will be used to analyze the results of the study along with postcolonial theories on state-building and a critical perspective on security. The results of the study show us that there is a significant difference in importance between the variables when an intervention is considered, and that the occurrence of war crimes and crimes against humanity is rarely considered enough for an intervention to be executed. The finalizing discussion concludes that there doesn’t appear to be any clear logic in the way which the Security Council applies The Responsibility to Protect, which could lead to serious legitimacy issues for the Security Council if left unsolved