Realism And Liberalism

This paper will use the two theoretical perspectives of realism and liberalism as frameworks for analyzing the case of UNAMIDs effectiveness. Those perspectives both provide good analytical frameworks for discussing collective security measures to be taken in peacekeeping in different ways. Liberalism emphasizes that the international system is characterized by interdependence and cooperation as opposed to realists, who holds the international system to be conditioned by anarchy. Liberalists place high emphasis on “peace-promoting” variables such as democratic governance, intergovernmental organizations and international trade i.e.globalization (Russett, 2013, 94). The liberalist perspective will therefore lead to a better understanding of

The realist perspective has therefore been chosen in this paper to examine the tensions between UNAMID and the Sudanese governments on matters such as national sovereignty. As will be later discussed, this perspective highlights some key contestations as to how the UNs actions i.e. the concept of Responsibility to protect (R2P) must not intervene with domestic jurisdictions (Gareis, 2012, 193). This delicate balance between intervention and non-intervention tactics protrudes a serious paradox for the UN, where national sovereignty cannot be overlooked. The two theoretical perspectives chosen thus reflect different aspects of the preconditions for international cooperation and will be used to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the UN as a development actor within the field of

The rebels claimed that Darfur had suffered decades of marginalization by the Sudanese government and this was further exacerbated by religious and ethnic conflicts (UNAMID, 2015). Essentially there are webs of internal factors which has led to the regions instability, not least the division of North and South Sudan and the South Sudanese civil war, worsening the situation. For more historical background of the crisis see “When Neutrality Is a Sin: The Darfur Crisis and the Crisis of Humanitarian Intervention in Sudan” (Udombana, 2005, 1153). It should be said that part of the insolubility has to do with tribalism, which UNAMID has had to take into account when facilitating peace talks on top of their peacekeeping operation. Two initial attempts were made in response to the deteriorating conditions in Sudan. The first was the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) which came into effect in 2004. The second was the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNAMIS) which proposed a better equipped UN peacekeeping force to be put in place to coordinate its efforts with AMISS. Both were failed efforts and unsuccessful in being able to contain the violence within the region. AMIS was finally replaced by UNAMID in 2007. For more information, as to why these two missions failed, see (Bashua,