| Summary: | The thesis investigates how China and the United States used state sovereignty in their official statements provided to the United Nations Security Council when discussing the Darfur conflict during the time period between 2004 and 2009. The thesis looks in particular at the official statements made with regards to the three different measures taken by the Security Council which were: the implementation of sanctions, the referral to the international criminal court and the deployment of peacekeeping. The thesis found that China applied a more cautious, but consistent, approach in which breaches of state sovereignty were never officially supported. The United States use of state sovereignty evolved as it became more willing over time to breach the sovereign rights of Sudan. The investigation into the official stance by China and the United States also provides general conclusions with regard to state sovereignty in contemporary international relations. First, the thesis finds that state sovereignty is still at the core of decision making in the United Nations Security Council, and as well in international relations, and there no present challenges to the role state sovereignty in contemporary international relations. Nonetheless, the different interpretations applied by states such as China and the United States, delays the decision-making process as states disagree on justifiable breaches of state sovereignty. State authorizes, such as the Government of Sudan, use state sovereignty as a barrier to effective international action to prevent atrocities and heinous crimes against humanity. In this application of state sovereignty, the rights of nation -states are protected more than the individual rights of human beings.
|
|---|
