M. MALIK MOURTADAY - DiVA portaluu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1144260/FULLTEXT01.pdfWhen it...

Department of Peace and Conflict Research Uppsala University

0 of 46

Humanitarian Intervention as a Weapon1

A qualitative study on the impact geo-strategic interests of veto

powers has on the UN decisions to intervene in Libya, and the

Non-intervention in Syria.

M. MALIK MOURTADAY

Peace and Conflict Studies C

Bachelor-thesis, 15 Credits

Department of Peace and Conflict Research

Uppsala University, fall of 2016

Consultant: Margareta Sollenberg

Words count: 11,007

1The author thanks Desireé Nilsson, Margareta Sollenberg and Johan Brosché for helpful comments

on earlier drafts of the present thesis. Peace and Conflict Research Department, Uppsala University.


1 of 46

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4

2. Theoretical framework ...................................................................................... 6

Power politics – Correlation Without a Cause ................................................... 6

Previous Research: Civil War, Economic Ties, Armed Alliences .................... 8

The Gap: Intervention Dilemma ...................................................................... 10

Linking Bargains on Business and Security..................................................... 11

Why Economic Ties Matters to Policy-Makers .............................................. 12

Soft-balancing Theory ..................................................................................... 13

Conditions Affecting States Geo-strategic Calculus ........................................ 15

Conclusion from Theory: Potential Causal Mechanism .................................. 16

3. Research Design ............................................................................................... 18

Method of Mechanisms .................................................................................... 18

Case Selection and Comparability ................................................................... 21

Operationalization ............................................................................................ 23

Data Collection and Design Limitations……………………………………...24

Scope Conditions ............................................................................................. 25

4. Case Studies ...................................................................................................... 26

The Background of Libya ................................................................................ 26

The Libyan Civil War (2011) .......................................................................... 27

Relations with Libya…………………………………………...……………..28

UNSC Armed Intervention……………………...…………...………….........28

The Background of Syria………………………...……………………….…..29

The Syrian Civil War (2011-2016)…………………………………...........…30


2 of 46

Relations with Syria….………………………………………………….…….31

UNSC Non-Intervention …………………………………...…………………32

5. Analysis ............................................................................................................. 32

Main Findings ....................................................................................................... 33

6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 37

7. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..39

List of Figures

Figure 1. The correlation to be explained

Figure 2. The possible causal pathway

Figure 3. The possible causal pathway and mechanisms to be observed

Figure 4. The map of world oil reserves (January 2014) according to OPEC


3 of 46

Abstract

In the first academic statistical search on the power-politic argument, Yukari

Iwanami (2011) found a negative correlation between the UN permanent members

geo-strategic interests and UN interventions. Following Iwanami’s

recommendation, this paper aims to construct theory, by probing into the possible

path of this correlation. Previous researches on UN armed intervention are places

in a common context where affecting civil wars, economic ties, and military

alliances are possible pathways for “veto-holder” members’ influence. In addition,

a new suggestion is made, that UN decisions to intervene can be viewed today as

the aftermath of veto powers soft-balancing calculus, which merely depends on the

extent to which a potential intervention might reform the powers equilibrium in the

anarchic international realm. Structured, focused comparison method is used to

analyze the cases of Libya and Syria. Lastly, some potential pathways and other

recommendations are suggested for future research.

Keywords: Civil wars, UNSC decision to intervene, Libya, Syria, veto powers, soft-

balancing calculus, geo-strategic interests.


4 of 46

1. Introduction

The research question of this thesis is: “Why does the United Nations Security

Council (UNSC) intervene in some humanitarian crises but not in others, and under

which conditions? “After all, the UN dilemmas of what to do regarding strangers

who are surfing nasty aggression by their own states have remained with us since

the post World War II (WWII). While the issues did not change, the rational context

has reformed significantly (Cooper et al. 2013: 18).

As an outcome of the international legal obligations indicated in the UN

Charter, well-defined parameters were legalized on how states should treat their

people.2 The national behavior of states becomes exposed to check by third parties

such as states, international organizations (IO’s), and non-governmental

organizations of human rights (NGO’s) for the first time in the modern history of

states society (ibid; 26). The UN Charter, however, limits the right to use military

force by single states to cases of self-defense, and it was wildly acknowledged

during the cold war that the use of military force to protect the casualties of mass

humanitarian abuses was not permitted according to international law (Wheeler,

2000: 1). The UNSC is allowed under the chapter VII provisions of the Charter to

empower the use of force that supports international peace and security, but there is

substantial dispute, regarding how far, thus, it is plausible to authorize the Security

Council to empower military interference in order to end civil wars within a

sovereign territory (Ibid: 4). In other words, doing something to liberate strangers

suffering from human rights abuse is expected to provoke accusations of

interference in the domestic affairs of another government, while doing nothing

might lead to moral burdens (Wheeler, 2000: 4).

Whereas the first logistic analysis 3 , explained in more detail below, has

2 The international legal obligations that protect individuals against the power of the state can be

found principlly in the UN charter, the 1948 Universal declaration of Human rights, the 1948

Genocide Convention, and the Nato. 3 Setting the agenda of the UN Security Council, a paper prepared by Iwanami for the 2011 annual

meeting of the American Political Science Association. Department of Political Science, University


5 of 46

indicated that there is, indeed, a negative correlation between UN permanent

members geo-strategic interests and UN armed interventions, even when controlling

for several relevant factors (Iwanami, 2011: 17). Yet, correlation and isolation alone

do not always mean causation. Therefore, the present thesis aspires to contribute to

theory development, through searching into the potential causal chain and

mechanisms.

First, previous researches on UN policy-making which are placed in common

framework where affecting the settings of the conflict, economic alliances and

foreign policies, constitute possible factors to impact stakeholders’ interests. In

addition, a new suggestion is made, which dictates that UN decisions to intervene

can be viewed today as the aftermath of veto powers soft-balancing calculus; it

merely depends on the extent to which a potential intervention might reform the

powers equilibrium in the anarchic international realm. The deducted hypothesis

that will be tested next in the analysis is that the more a major power actor geo-

strategic interests are risked by a domestic conflict, the less it is expected that the

UNSC will intervene. As the whole UNSC policy-making process is expected to

revolve around soft-balancing logic, if the theory is valid, the UNSC authorizations

of humanitarian interventions today, thus, might exhibit tangible indicators for the

smart-modern power balancing.

Second, Structured, Focused Comparison (SFC) method is used for two case

studies, respectively the crises in Libya and Syria. As the field is new, the most

likely academic principles of case selection and sources usage are respected in order

to maximize the possibility of finding the proposed causal mechanism.

Nevertheless, based on the results, power soft-balancing research on the progress of

UN policymaking is a valuable debate, as it represents a basis to study actors’ geo-

strategic interests impact on the UNSC humanitarian decisions, which has a direct

impact on international peace and security. Lastly, future research recommendations

are made.

of Rochester.


6 of 46

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter starts with an account to Iwanami’s (2011) statistical analysis to

explain the correlation found between geo-strategic interests of veto powers and

UNSC humanitarian decisions, and the missing causal explanation. As there is a

lack of theory, a framework of a suggestive path is built from previous research on

the dependent variable. A lacuna between normative obligations and UN

performance mechanisms leads me to propose my own theoretic proposal: that the

UNSC authorization for humanitarian intervention might reflect today, eventually,

the cost-benefit aftermath of veto powers soft balancing, which depends to a large

extent on the magnitude of risks a civil war represents to their core geo-strategic

interests, along with certain interplay with humanitarian sentiments.

When it comes to my independent variable, recent research on the UN

permanent members’ (P5) geo-strategic interests in relation to third-party decision

to intervene is used, along with literature on the economic and military ties, to

deduct the hypothesis, and the plausible causal model, which will be tested next in

the analysis.

Power Politics – A Correlation without a Cause

In this research, I refer to the Japanese scholar Yukari Iwanami, who

conducted the first quantitative empirical analysis on the whole decision-making

process of the Security Council (2011:21). Several analyses of UN peacekeeping in

the literature focus on humanitarian crises, and examine when and where

peacekeeping missions are more expected to be dispatched (Doyle and Sambanis,

2000; Page Fortna, 2008). Though, peacekeeping is just one measure of UN

intervention, and in order to capture a general picture of the Council’s intervention,

it is still necessary to analyze other forms of the Council’s decisions to intervene.

The power-politics logic is widely discussed in the literature. Yet, very little


7 of 46

systematic research has been done to test the validity of these explanations in order

to advance theory on the field although Iwanami contributed by her findings to the

literature on conflict management and civil wars. Since she expanded the scope of

the analysis into the Council’s agenda as a whole, and examined several potential

factors that influence the Council’s decision-making, relating veto members interest

to the UNSC agenda and resolutions. She coded 445 domestic disputes between

1946 and 1999 as entered to the UNSC agenda or not (Iwanami, 2011:13). Besides,

the author isolated civil wars from intra-state conflicts that escalated into

international wars by involving third parties. While the Council can also ask the

General Assembly to hold meetings to discuss certain issues, Iwanami did not

include those resolutions. 4

The author derived nine hypotheses on how the interests of the permanent

members and international norms affect the Security Council’s agenda setting

process. She related the voting patterns of permanent members, the relationship

between the states in conflict and the veto powers’ policy preferences, along with

how this relationship affects the policy outcome of the Security Council, but this

does not automatically denote a causal explanation, as much of the theory remains

unspecified.

Iwanami, (2011) nevertheless, joins those who claim that permanent members

welcome the involvement of the Security Council, because it will reduce the costs

of intervention and increase the legitimacy of engagement. Rather, she argues that

conflicts in states that are allies and/or former colonies of UNSC permanent

members are less expected to be acknowledged, which strongly support the power

politics argument; that the UN policy-making is driven by the permanent members

geostrategic interest (2011: 21).5 Albeit intuitively easy to undertake, this does not

really entail a causal description, as much of the theoretic uncertainty remains: geo-

strategic interest is neither precisely detected, nor why are civil wars in alliance

partners (or former colonies) of permanent members less expected to come to the

4 The author gathered her dependent variables based on the official documents of the United Nations,

accessible at UNBISNET. 5 These effects holds even when controlling for other elements that affects the UN intervention, such

as the number of deaths, oil export, permanent member ally, former permanent member’s colony,

internationalization of the conflict, actors’ capabilities, and cold war (Iwanami, 2011: 7).


8 of 46

Council’s agenda? In other words, how does it, in turn, affect the five members

geostrategic calculus?

Figure 1. The correlation to be explained

Previous Research: Conflict Characteristics, Economic Ties, and

Armed Alliances

Although interventions are considered as serious violations of state

sovereignty and necessitate frequently expensive foreign-policy measures, states

have used interventions to influence civil conflicts (Gleditsch, 2007). The literature

has identified a set of characteristics that increase the risk of a third-party

intervention, comprising civil war strategic location, capabilities, and existing (or

historical) ties of both potential intervener and target state. These characteristics

notably form, to a large extent, the decision to intervene as they influence potential

interveners’ willingness and opportunity to act.6

First, geographic proximity is an obvious characteristic influencing domestic

conflict intervention (Saleyhan and Gleditsch, 2006). Bordering states have a

superior opportunity to intervene than most distant states, because the area where

6 Willingness “is related to a decision-maker’s calculations of advantage and disadvantage, cost and

benefit, considered on both conscious and unconscious levels” (Siverson and Starr, 1990: 49). In

contrast, Opportunity denotes “the possibilities that are available to any entity within any

environment, representing the total set of environmental constraints and possibilities” (Siverson and

Starr, 1990: 48). The opportunity and willingness to intervene, in tandem, influence the possibility of

civil conflict intervention.

Independent

P5 Geo-strategic

Interests

Dependent

UN Decision to

Intervene

What is the

potential causal

chain and

Mechanism?


9 of 46

the conflict takes place reduces the costs of involvement (Lemke and Regan, 2004).

Furthermore, proximate countries are extremely vulnerable to the costs of a conflict

and, thus, concerns of inaction results. These states are motivated to avoid the

spillover of the civil war into their lands and mitigate economic, social, and

humanitarian consequences of the domestic dispute (Findley and Teo, 2006). 7

Beardsley and Schmidt (2012) look at the determinants of distinct levels of UNSC

involvement in global crises, they state that measures of the escalatory potential and

severity of a crisis are better explanations for the Council’s intervention than

variables that measure the parochial interests of the five permanent “veto-holding”

members (P5). Yet, their analysis is restricted to UNSC intervention in inter-state

conflicts and does not focus on domestic conflicts where humanitarian disasters are

frequently obvious.

Second, capabilities of the probable intervener are also key factors of the

willingness and opportunity to intervene. As costly efforts, humanitarian

interventions need nations to spend assets on meddling the domestic affairs of other

nations. Major powers have geo-strategic interests broadening well beyond their

borders to regions and states across the globe (Pearson, Baumann and Pickering,

1994). Moreover, powerful states possess a certain level of power projection

capabilities essential to execute interventions. Obviously, these countries are among

those most repeatedly engaging this foreign policy tactic due to their military

superiority (Gent, 2008). Concluded by Fortna (2004), UN peacekeepers are sent to

difficult instances for peacekeeping and they are very vigilant when it concerns

strong militarily states. According to Mullenbach (2005), The UN peacekeeping is

less expected if the armed conflict is located in a superpower state or has strong

allies, but more expected to take place if the UNSC has been involved earlier in a

domestic conflict.

Third, a record of close relations between a conflict state and possible

intervener(s) might similarly influence decisions to intervene. Close relations such

as alliance partnership and former colonial ties have been perceived to enter the

7 Conflict casualties and refugee flows are the most common instances of social and humanitarian

social consequences of civil wars.


10 of 46

expected interveners geostrategic calculus. Colonial ties include the enmeshing of

economic, social, and political relations between the past colony and the colonial

power (Lemke and Regan, 2004). Moreover, a risk to the stability of the previous

colony as a product of domestic disturbances might increase the enthusiasm to

mitigate the unwelcomed possible effects of the civil war on these ties (Kathman,

2010). On the other hand, alliances enhance the capabilities of a state worrying

outside threats and, thus, their integrity and stability are vital (Lemke and Regan,

2004). When civil wars menace an ally, it could be in the long-term interest of the

possible intervener to shore up the embattled regime through intervention (Findley

and Teo, 2006; Fordham, 2008). This is particularly expected since Fordham (2010)

finds that asymmetric alliances are more common and more long lasting in the

existence of trade.

Third-party literature on intervention has detected this relationship. For

instance, Pearson (1974: 438) identifies the “protection of economic interests in the

target state” as one of the key factors to be taken into consideration when deciding

to intervene in a domestic war. More recent research scrutinizes whether or not

natural resources heighten the motivation of states to intervene in other states’

domestic conflicts (Ross, 2004; Aydin, 2010). Others suggest that economic

interests may enter the calculus of an expected intervener, indicating that economic

relations influence the interest and, hence, the willingness of third-party to act

(Regan, 1998; Carment and James, 2004). Consistent with this opinion, recent

evidence indicates that global trade may increase the willingness and opportunity of

states to intervene. Kathman (2011) proves that a state with major trade relations to

a particular region is more expected to intervene in a conflict located in that region,

than in an economically unimportant territory.

The Gap: Intervention Dilemma

Notably, the chief concern of this paper is to find out specific regions where

natural resources and economic ties are more likely to denote serious risks to the

core geo-strategic interests of the five major powers (P5). In an attempt to explain

why civil wars in alliance partners (or former colonies) of permanent members are

less expected to come to the Council’s agenda? What stops them from allowing the


11 of 46

UNSC to interfere in the domestic affairs of their allies? And what are the possible

conditions that make major powers more expected to use their vetoes against the

UN humanitarian intervention (Iwanami, 2011: 23).

Linking Bargains on Business and Security

Many studies have found that military alliances have an impact on trade

(Mansfield and Bronson, 1997). From a realist standpoint, these studies posit that

partners trade more than non-allies, because countries are wary of the security

externalities that arise through bilateral economic exports. Trade generates a

security externality for nations, because there is no guarantee that the gains from

trade will not be used to reinforce military power and, in turn, to menace trade

allies. Military relationships indirectly impose collaboration in trade by creating

motivations for allied governments to value their exchange partners’ gains. A case

in point here is that wealth gained from trade reinforces the potential military power

of the alliance.

Accordingly, security externalities from trade might change behavior by firms

and states. Governments could manage trade policy to direct trade toward allies and

away from actual or likely foes. Furthermore, the causal mechanism behind an

optimistic relationship between alliances and trade might be a response by

multinationals to positive political relationships between states (Long, 2003). When

corporations feel secure that conflict among their country and that of their exchange

partners is unlikely to occur and that the states will collaborate together to promote

trade between their respective businesses, they are more likely to invest in

commerce. Investments to serve export markets are often relation-specific, which

forces firms to guard against future opportunistic conducted by trading partners. As

a result, businesses are more expected to establish trade relations with the

multinationals of a state that is allied to their government.8 Allied governments have

political-military reasons to enforce trade agreements between their firms, because

trade increases the potential military power of the alliance (Gowa and Mansfield,

8 Gowa & Mansfield (2004) point out that this argument applies especially when goods exchanged

are subject to increasing returns to scale.


12 of 46

2004). Many economic relations such as international investments and trade exports

progress from difficult negotiations between states. These negotiations take place

under international bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), sectoral

intergovernmental cartels such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC), regional incorporation arrangements, and bilateral investment

treaties.

Why Economic Relations Matter to Policy-makers

Similar to other ties, trade relations are developed over time and, if solid

enough, these relations form a vested interest in the stability of vital economic

allies. These partnerships keep states in perpetual communication with each other,

developing, to some levels, mutual trust and reciprocal visions of economic

welfares. Apart from this, private domestic economic actors are involved in direct

cross border business. These private economic actors influence - to a large extent -

their governments’ economic negotiations and ensure a place for their preferences. I

acknowledge that a decision to intervene is the product of certain interplay of

national self-interests and/or humanitarian sentiments along with the nature of the

civil war environment. I do, however, perceive bilateral economic relations -

precisely natural resources (oil and natural gas) export - as a central factor, which

increases the likelihood of third-party negotiating decisions to intervene. Leaders

face a direct challenge to their national energy security when a conflict is located in

rich oil regions; therefore, such a problem deserves more academic and empirical

attention.

Potential third-party officials, specifically strong economic and trade

associates, are of course, conscious of the civil war costs and assess the charges

before making an appropriate response to a civil conflict (Collier and Hoeffler,

2004). Reactions might differ from finding alternative markets, mediation, and

economic sanctions, to extreme army provision against one side in the battle.

Therefore, armed intervention is not the only choice available to third parties, “the

idea that states may intervene into a conflict to protect their interests is hardly

profound” (Findley and Teo, 2006: 830). However, I argue that economic relations,

which are similar to other forms of interstate ties, increase the attention a third-party


13 of 46

pays to the internal affairs of its substantial partners. This constitutes a paradigm of

paramount importance, because national stability is an obligatory condition for

promoting and sustaining trade movement and development. Equally, civil armed

conflicts incline to cause destruction to infrastructure that supports global export.

Such damage of property surely interrupts economic exchange and amplifies

insecurity in the market though the infrastructure is constructed by foreign

investments. Collier et al., probing some of these unfavorable lucrative concerns,

call domestic conflicts “development in reverse” (2003: 1).

Likewise, Bayer and Rupert (2004) estimate that civil conflicts, on average,

result in roughly a 30% decrease in global commerce. Obviously, domestic wars

cause losses to third-party economies. The economic costs of civil wars, however

felt globally, are not frequently dispersed equally through the economies of affected

stakeholders. Relatively these costs are high in sectoral productions that have some

legacy of valuable economic relations with the conflict state. Mitchell (1970) argues

that internal socio-economic groups gaining from economic networks within a state

that undergoes civil war may appeal for intervention from their respective

governments. As utility-maximizing players, these powerful interest groups should

seek to lobby their government’s foreign policy positions; whenever the stability of

a nation they do business with is at risk of profit-threatening domestic dispute.

Still, informed of the likely economic concerns, decision-makers would, thus,

decide actions intended to amortize the losses of their national economic

constituency, including armed intervention. Liberal understandings of global

relations admit the extent to which domestic constituency economic preferences

shape decision-makers’ choices (Moravcsik, 1997). The same outcome has been

anticipated in civil wars intervention (Aydin, 2012). Although most intervention

lobbying attempts are difficult to record and direct lobbying is unlikely to practice

out in public and formal circles, existing proof of such phenomenon is usually

triangulated from the interests of stakeholders, government officials, and policy

outputs (Fagre and Wells, 1982). Cutrone and Fordham (2010: 635), for example,

claim that US officials whose constituents “are threatened by imports from other

countries may use human rights concerns to justify calls for trade protection”.

Several empirical works on lobbying and intervention indicate the role played

by powerful domestic interest groups. Getz and Oetzel (2009) identify strategies


14 of 46

accessible to businesses existing in conflict markets, classifying lobbying as an

“indirect intervention strategy”. This demand to defend overseas interests has

guided businesses to establish a role in US foreign policy whereby “virtually all

major corporations on the Fortune 500 list have some kind of representation in

Washington, and a large percentage of them is involved in foreign policy lobbying”

(McCormick, 2009: 492). Gibbs (1991), delivering more direct support, detects a set

of CIA officials, White House, and State Department, with strong relations to

corporations involved in the Democratic Republic of Congo and indicate that

decisions about appropriate US officials action were consistent with the interests of

these interest groups to a large extent.9

Soft-Balancing Theory

The concept of Soft-Balancing has recently surfaced as a new understanding

of states strategies to balance dominant actors, which encourages the use of

diplomatic and economic instruments to pressure the most dominant state and delay

their effort for power and supremacy. Balancing comportment of states is driven by

the structural characteristics of the global equilibrium system of powers itself.

Advocates of soft balancing have suggested several mechanisms through which

powers engage in this style of balancing, comprising mediation, diplomatic

coalitions, agreements and international institutions, statecraft mechanisms such as

economic initiatives, as well as territorial denial and multilateral and regional

economic activities that ignore the superpower in the process (Paul, 2005: 53).

Obviously, leaders resort to balance in order to prevent being controlled by

stronger powers (Walt, 1985: 5). It is the concern of states to restrain a potential

hegemon before it becomes too powerful, so that they can prevent falling victim to

its standards before undergoing the superpower control. It is safer for states to either

improve one's own abilities through self-help mechanisms, or form alliances with

9 Gibbs (1991: 114–160) also displays similar government - business relations in Belgian and French

policymakers and process traces decisions vis-à-vis the form of intervention action based on these

lucrative interests.


15 of 46

states that cannot readily lead in order to limit and contain the one who might

possibly weaken the survival of states and govern the whole system (Nye, 1990:

158).

Still, cases of humanitarian crises represent a self-help opportunity for veto

powers, given the nature of the anarchic system. If crises happen to be located in the

ally’s territory of a veto member, it is estimated as affecting its own power due to

globalization and power interconnectivity. The permanent members, therefore, veto

any UNSC intervention that might represent a potential regime change, which might

denote a risk of downgrade in the global equilibrium of powers (Paul, 2005: 54).

Conditions Affecting States Geo-strategic Calculus

Rationalists claim that in the anarchical international system, lacking an

international hegemon or sovereign, countries are locked in a “self-help” system,

absorbed in a constant struggle to guarantee their own existence. Neorealism

perceives the aftermath of anarchy as mistrust and insecurity whereby states can

only ensure their survival by maximizing their power relative to others (Waltz,

1979). Powers, and dynamics relating to power, are the visible data with which to

analyze the global system. As Mearsheimer says “the distribution of material

capabilities among states is the key factor for understanding world politics” (1995:

91).

Neoliberalism, on the other hand, does not suppose that anarchy dictates a

focus on relative power, nor does it see the global system as a zero-sum game

(Baldwin, 1993: 6; Stein, 1982: 318). Neoliberalism conceives that states have an

interest in their position in the international system in absolute terms, focusing on

maximizing their well being regardless of other states. Neoliberalism rationalizes

cooperative behavior between states and institutions in international relations as a

chain of “iterated” interactions, reciprocated in a “tit-for-tat” mode, theoretically in

the interests of each (Axelrod, 1984). Notably however “cooperation ensues not

because of morality or idealistic motivations, but because it satisfies the long-term

interests of power-maximizing rational states” (Hobson, 2000: 98; Keohane, 1984:

65-85). Notwithstanding the above-mentioned differences, both theories stress the


16 of 46

self-interested identity of the state. Be it absolute or relative gains, welfare or

power, “both take the self- interested state as the starting point for theory” (Wendt,

1992: 392).

Conclusion from Theory: Possible Causal Path

In sum, executive politicians are totally aware of security and economy risks

of civil war that can disturb their integral interest groups. These representatives,

directed by the preferences of national lucrative actors, mostly prone to be disturbed

by a domestic war, are more expected to adopt strategies geared to relieve the

negative effects of a given domestic conflict, on their national security and

economic health. I do not argue that the existence of self-interest in the conflict or

even pro-intervention lobbying automatically yields a decision to intervene. Rather,

economic reliance is perceived as a decisive variable in any political geo-strategic

equation. Therefore, the magnitude of risks to major powers national energy

security increases the chances that governments will take actions, involving armed

intervention if necessary. The argument asserts that trade ties work in ways similar

to existing strategic military coalitions, which foregrounds whether or not

motivation to intervene depends, to a large extent, on whether the crises happen to

be located in the ally’s territory of a veto member or not, as it is estimated as

affecting its own power due to globalization and power interconnectivity. The

permanent members, therefore, veto any UNSC intervention that might represent a

potential regime change, which might denote a risk of downgrade in the global

equilibrium of powers (Paul, 2005: 54-55). All in all, the subsequent hypothesis that

will be tested next in the analysis is that:

H: The more a UN permanent member geo-strategic interests are in danger,

the less it is expected that the UNSC will intervene.

Based on previous research on the third-party intervention and civil wars, and

after assessing conflict characteristics, economic relations, and armed alliances, I,

farther, propose that UNSC authorization, or non-authorization for humanitarian

intervention, might be regarded eventually today as the aftermath of the veto powers


17 of 46

soft-balancing calculations, which merely depends on the extent to which a

potential intervention might reform the status quo of powers in the anarchic system.

In line with this, critics such as Stephen Brooks and William Wohlfort (2008)

contend that these actions might not be automatically interpreted as balancing

behavior, and that thoughts as of soft balancing are just a weak effort by theorists to

defend balance of power theory in an era in which the theoretical assumptions of the

theory no longer hold due to variations in norms. However, the present analysis

points out in a riposte to Brooks and Wohlfort (2008) that the global system of

states is still anarchic, with actors having to rely on self-help to ensure their

survival. Moreover, it is not power itself that major powers balance against, but it is

the “fear of power generated by the anarchic system that drives states to balance

against each other in the system.” (Nye, 1990: 157) If we deem that the assumptions

made by balance of power theory still hold true, then it still has explanatory power.

The possible causal model to be operationalized next is explained in (Figure. 2)

below.

Figure 2: The possible causal mechanism.

Dependent

UN Decision to

Intervene

Independent

P5 Geo-strategic

Interest

The possible Causal Chain

“Veto-holder” Members

Soft Balancing


18 of 46

3. Research Design

This chapter starts with an explanation of the methods adopted for the case

studies, a brief discussion about mechanisms in social science, and a description of

the aim. The selection of the cases is then specified, with a discussion on their

comparability. Main concepts in the likely causal path are operationalized, and

lastly, the sources are appraised.

Methods and Causal Mechanism

Teorell and Svensson (2007) stated that extensive studies such as Iwanami’s

(2011) are beneficial for finding correlation between the independent and dependent

variables, as well as in isolating the influence from that of other elements

(2007:270-1). Furthermore, their reliability is often better. Frequently, intensive

studies are promising more in terms of validity, as fewer cases permit more

profound and focused operationalization, whereas generality is rather established

from extensive studies (Teorell and Svensson 2007: 268-269). Teorell and

Svensson, therefore, support merging intensive and extensive analyses, and if

resources are incomplete to openly bond one's research to preceding investigation

(2007:274), a cross case study will allow the current research to check if Iwanami’s

correlation effectively denotes causality.

Hedström and Svedberg (1998: 5) differentiated between the natural sciences

looking after laws to tone the connections among variables, and the research in

social sciences seeking causal paths, which fit somewhere between simple

explanation – so called middle-range theorizing – and social rules. The undertaking

of social disciplines afterwards turns out to find causal devices and determine

whether they function under certain conditions or not. A causal mechanism is

frequently explained as fragments of theory about entities at a different level than

the link we want to clarify (Hedström and Svedberg, 1998: 9).

In these terms, the likely causal path sketched in the theory chapter is

illustrated in (Figure. 3) below, and could be explained as follows:


19 of 46

The aforementioned set of characteristics that increase the risk of a third-party

intervention, comprising conflict geo-strategic position, capabilities, and existing

(or historical) ties of both potential intervener and target state. These characteristics

notably form the decision to intervene as they influence potential interveners’

willingness and opportunity to act. Willingness “is related to a decision-maker’s

calculations of advantage and disadvantage, cost and benefit, considered on both

conscious and unconscious levels” (Siverson and Starr, 1990: 49). In contrast,

opportunity denotes “the possibilities that are available to any entity within any

environment, representing the total set of environmental constraints and

possibilities” (ibid: 48). The opportunity and willingness to intervene, in tandem,

influence the possibility of civil conflict intervention.

By the same token, interest groups lobby their government’s officials whose

beliefs and behavior are affected to some extent when they know the real cost a civil

war denotes to their national energy security, especially, in domestic conflicts that

imply an interception of energy products flow in the international markets. This

could seriously challenge governments leading robust industrial economies such as

the “veto-holder” members. Thus, civil wars located in alliance partners (or former

colonies) of permanent members implicitly affect collaboration in trade and reduce

the military power potential of the existing alliance.

To balance against dominant actors, states adopt soft strategies that encourage

the use of diplomatic and economic instruments to put pressure on the most

dominant state and delay their effort for power and supremacy (Paul, 2005: 53).

Therefore, the present paper contend that balancing behavior of states is driven by

the structural characteristics of the global equilibrium system of powers itself,

which stops them from allowing the UNSC to interfere in the domestic affairs of

their allies.


20 of 46

As far as methodology is concerned, the method that will be used in order to

achieve this investigation is structured focus comparison (SFC). This approach is a

between-case design, as it necessitates two or more cases to be compared with each

other. SFC is used to focus on particular characteristics of the chosen cases in order

to assess the hypothesis. The method is structured in a sense that a set of general

questions is formulated before gathering the data, which will be asked to each case

later in the analysis. This allows the process of data collection to be standardized

and only data that is appropriate for the specific variables is collected and

questioned. This homogenous gathering of data makes the cases comparable with

each other. The method is systematized in a way that it deals only with certain

facets of the cases, namely those directly linked to the variables relevant to the

formed hypotheses. This is the focused element of SFC (Powner, 2015: 129). What

distinguishes this method from the statistical counterpart is the accumulation of a

theoretical focus replicating the observation objectives throughout the research.


21 of 46

One has to keep in mind that all sides of an event cannot be tackled in a

single analysis, and, thus, it is significant to keep the focus limited to the exact

aspect selected for the study (George & Bennett, 2005: 69f). The present case

studies focus on “those aspects that have been identified as relevant in the

previously established theoretical framework” (Söderberg Kovacs, 2007:49). More

precisely, the present paper is a comparative study of policymakers' approaches to

strategy and tactics toward political opponents in the international arena.

Case Selection and Comparability

When merging extensive and intensive analyses, Teorell and Svensson (2007:

277) instruct selecting a case that fits into the general correlation to scrutinize the

causal mechanism or prove certain correlation; it is one that does not request new

explanatory variables to reinforce the validation. As the objective is to progress

theory, I will choose one of each of the following aforementioned instructions.

Also, I will define each phase of the sequence choices.

The first delimitation is centered on the dependent variable variation; it is

viable to select one case where the UNSC passed a resolution to intervene and one

where it did not. The cases are divided into those where the UNSC intervened as a

response to a humanitarian crisis, and those where it failed to provide aid, to study

one of each. The second delimitation involves selecting cases in non-democratic

governments, as Iwanami (2011:19) coefficient estimates of democracy is

statistically significant, indicating that the Security Council tends to become

involved in non-democracies crises than democracies. The third delimitation is

about the internationalization of the conflict, as it was also statistically indicative in

Iwanami’s regression.

The fourth is based on the independent variable, geo-strategic significance,

only crises that are located within territories, rich in natural resources – such as oil

and natural gas, or brothering significant petroleum proven reserves – based on

data10 from BP, at the end of 2009 – territories, in which an intensified conflict

means significant potential oil trade interruption (see figure 4). The late economist

10 Three countries dominated gas reserves: Iran, Russia, and Qatar, which together held nearly half of

the world's proven reserves.


22 of 46

E.F. Schumacher once mused that energy was “not just another commodity, but the

precondition of all commodities, a basic factor equal with air, water, and earth”. But

because of its ubiquitous nature, the welfares of superior energy security are often

non-excludable and non-rivalrous, similar to other public goods like clean air or

national defense. Thus a paradox arises: energy security is vital to modern society,

yet its very ubiquity makes it prone to market under-distribution and failure (1980;

1–2). For instance, if we look at the entire wealth of mankind, the value of oil

reserves in place is estimated around 17 trillion US dollars, which is the most

valuable commodity currently priced on earth (Dannreuther and Ostrowski, 2013).

Therefore, much of the geo-strategy motivations for major economic forces revolve

around the structure of global energy markets.

Iwanami (2011:17) denoted a strong effect on UN interventions, implying that

major powers are very concerned when their national energy interests are in

jeopardy. As control over the structure of energy markets, cannot be done in a

smooth transition, it ultimately requires mobilizing military troops to secure access

to these energy supplies abroad. The fifth and the last delimitation is concerned with

the high number of atrocities in the ground where only armed conflicts that the UN

classified as (L3) humanitarian emergencies11 are selected.

The last step is mainly practical, after these delimitations, there are ten cases

left, two of which fit into the correlation and eight do not.12 I opt for two cases that

are sound, with great significance in terms of energy traffic (See the figure 4). That

left me with Libya (UNSC decision to intervene) and Syria (No-intervention

decision yet), both with escalating figures of aggression and atrocities since the start

of the crises in 2011. Accordingly, the research focuses on the UNSC armed

intervention in Libya (2011), and the Russian and Chinese vetoes against the UNSC

mandates in Syria (2011-16). Although a variation in the UN policy-making is

obvious, a comparative study of policymakers' approaches to strategy and tactics

toward political opponents in the international arena is needed.

11 Level 3 (L3) Emergency is a sudden major-onset humanitarian emergency instigated by conflict or

natural catastrophes that demands system-wide mobilization. The calculations before the declaration

of an (L3) emergency is centered on an analysis of five criteria – urgency, complexity, scale,

capacity and reputational risk (UN, 2013: 12). 12 Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan


23 of 46

Figure. 4: A map of world petroleum reserves according to OPEC, January 2014.

Operationalization

What is the role-played by National Geo-strategic Interest? National interests

defined in strategic, economic, and political terms have always been regarded as the

principle determinants of decisions to intervene (Wight, 1978; 138). The view taken

here is that state interests are what states “think them to be” and that they depend on

the set of constraints and opportunities that states face at any given time (ibid; 95).

What is the utility and role of natural resources such as energy for advancing one's

interests? How are the risks of political action best calculated, controlled, and

accepted? (George and Bennett, 2005: 88). Do states practice the values that they

advocate? The sources used in this research comprise original UN reports, archival

materials, memoirs, oral histories, newspapers, and new interviews.

What is the best approach for major powers selecting goals or objectives for

political action and Decision-making (Veto or Not)? How are the goals of action

pursued most effectively? What is the best timing of action to advance one's

interests? (George & Bennett, 2005:89). Governments are unlikely to intervene


24 of 46

unless the chance of success can analytically be divided into two sets of

considerations, which focus on the practical problems of executing the intervention

successfully at an acceptable cost.

The perceived chance of success is here a function of the conflict

characteristics, the economic-military strength and nature of alliances. What are the

objectives states perused in their policy-making to balance dominate actors? How

do states make use of diplomatic and economic instruments to apply pressure on the

most dominant states and delay their effort for power and supremacy? What is the

mechanism that drives states soft balancing comportment in the global equilibrium

system of powers itself?

The political considerations associated with intervention decisions focus on

determining their objective and the level of costs. Therefore, energy imports, energy

production, and trade infrastructure such as ports and energy pipelines will serve as

indicators to measure the magnitude of risk a civil war might represent to major

powers geo-strategic interest. Answers to these questions should provide a

parsimonious but at the same time satisfactory explanation for why civil wars in

alliance partners (or former colonies) of permanent members are less expected to be

dealt with within the Council’s agenda? And what are the possible conditions that

make major powers more inclined to use their vetoes against the UN humanitarian

intervention (Iwanami, 2011: 23).

Data Collection and Design Limitations

The material used to study the national geo-strategic interests of the major

powers will mainly be based on material and data collected from the UN13, CIA,

EIA and BP websites, which should be regarded as a trustworthy source. The data is

further backed-up with academic articles, reports, and analyses of professional

newspapers, including expert journals and approved political divisions direct

statements of (and interviews with) military personnel, politicians, and witnesses of

the processes from open media sources. Since this primary data is valuable for

verifying the theoretical framework of the research, the aim is to shape a deeper

explanation of the context and not just conduct a presentation of facts and numbers.

13 (HDI) Human Development Index.


25 of 46

Although one can rise the reliability by being transparent on how the author

have examined the material and provide enough information to replicate the study

(George & Bennett 2005: 105-106). A challenge with this sort of qualitative

analysis is its reliability; in other words, the lack of random wrongdoings and the

possibility to repeat the study and come to the same conclusion (Esaiasson et al.

2013: 63). This is challenging with studies where the data is vulnerable for

interpretations and bias.

Scope Conditions

First of all, this analysis is geared towards the examination of only domestic

conflicts and not international conflicts. Since the dynamics of these wars often

differ to a great extent, it is hard to generalize the findings from one category of the

conflict to the other. Secondly, The discussion on UN humanitarian intervention in

general is intensive and widespread in conflict management and civil war literature.

However the concluded intervention in Libya and the ongoing conflict in Syria lack

these detailed academic sources, measuring the decision-making developments that

led to different conducts by UN in dealing with both crises in Libya and Syria.

As it is noticeable in the map of world petroleum reserves (Figure.4), Syria

does not have much oil reserves, but located next to the center of world energy

production. In addition, it has been argued14 that the control over the geographic

region of proven oil reserves overlaps with the power base of much of the Salafi-

jihadist hub. This creates a link between oil sources and the U.S long war against

“terrorism”. And as it is perceived, many UNSC meetings and consultations are

undertaken behind closed doors, which make the gatherings of all pieces forming

this puzzle impossible. Therefore, I acknowledge the likelihood that the dataset

might not reflect, to some extent, the true stimuli of the veto powers. Therefore,

when examining major allies economic and military support to the actors, only

international materialistic support is included. It would, however, be extremely

motivating to further include civilian support in the analysis. Nevertheless, this

might unfortunately not be made, because of the difficulty with measuring civilian

support and the absence of data.

14 Based on U.S. Army-funded RAND report (2008) “Unfolding the Future of the Long War”.


26 of 46

In addition, data on energy imports, energy production, and trade

infrastructure has all been collected from primary sources available such as CIA,

EIA and BP reports. Except some data regarding intelligence services and energy

agreements that was only available in professional newspapers – such as the

Guardian, CNN, Al Jazeera, ANSA, and European Jewish Press – which represent a

risk of bias and error when converting reality to data.

4. Case Studies:

The background of Libya

The country, situated in North Africa, shares its borders with the two foremost

“Arab-Spring” countries, Tunisia and Egypt, along with Chad, Sudan, Algeria and

Niger. It is also not too distant from Europe; Italy is located in its north just across

the Mediterranean. Libya is the fourth largest country in Africa (with an area of 1.8

million sq. km), more than 90% of the country is desert or semi desert, and its

populace is one of the lowest in Africa, as only around 6,541,948 million 15 ,

immigrants make up over 12% of the total population, according to UN data 16

where 96.6% are officially Muslims, virtually all Sunni (CIA, 2017). A large oil

rich desert, with an ancient history, has more recently been well known for the 42

years regime of Col. Gaddafi and the chaos that followed his murder.

Consequently, Libya’s natural gas and oil prices are highly unstable, because

of continuing protests and other disruptions across the country. With soundly good

revenue per capita of 14000 $, Libya also had the highest HDI (Human

Development Index, 2011) in the continent. However, the rate of unemployment is

high at 30 percent, taking some shine off its solid economic credentials (CIA,

2017).

15 July 2015 EST. 16 July 2016 EST.


27 of 46

The Libyan Civil War (2011)

In early 2011, after the civil war started, the anti-Gaddafi forces formed a

committee called the National Transitional Council (NTC), on 27 February 2011. It

was intended to work as a provisional authority in the rebel-controlled zones. Both

sides committed a number of killings after the Libyan government initiated to roll

back the rebels (Crawford, 2011; Fahim, 2011; Smith, 2011). On 19 March 2011, a

multilateral NATO-led alliance initiated a military intervention in Libya, obviously

to apply the adopted UNSC Resolution 1973. The United Nations voting an intent

was to have “an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current

attacks against civilians, which constitute crimes against humanity/... /imposing a

ban on all flights in the country's airspace – a no-fly zone – and tightened sanctions

on the Gadhafi regime and its supporters” (UN, 2011).

The resolution was adopted in response to violent events during the Libyan

Civil War (UN, 2011), where military operations began, with British and American

marine forces firing over 110 Tomahawk boat missiles (Al Jazeera, 2011), the

British Royal Air Force, French Air Force, and Royal Canadian Air Force (BBC

News, 2011) starting maneuvers across Libya and a naval blockade by Alliance

forces (CNN, 2011) French airplanes launched air attacks against Libyan Army

tanks and vehicles (Gibson, 2011). Soon thereafter, on 27 June 2011 the

International Criminal Court (ICC) released an arrest demand against Gaddafi and

his entourage. Col. Gaddafi was overthrown from power after the fall of Tripoli to

the rebel forces on 20 August 2011, which culminated with the killing of Gaddafi to

end the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya regime (Batty, 2011; European Jewish Press,

2011).

Relations with Libya

Libyan trades to Europe are mainly energy products, which in 2010 was 97.1

percent of the whole Libyan exports. Libya worries Western political heads, their

energy strategy, and military advisers (Kovacs, 2007:48-50). Libya has considerable


28 of 46

reserves of petroleum along with Algeria, which represents a position of strategic

counterbalance to reliance on energy, in particular natural gas piped from Russia to

Europe. In addition to solar, geothermal, and wind sources of energy are also

promising within its enormous territory. This makes Libya strategically significant

in the international race for energy resources. Henceforth, Europe’s dependence on

Libya’s petroleum and natural gas is expected to increase given the aforementioned

reasons. Gaddafi, on the other hand, has opponents around the globe, especially in

his own region. Therefore, Western interference would not almost indisputably have

happened if the Arab League had not supported it. Only Venezuela spoke out

strongly in Gaddafi's defense, while Zimbabwe was one of the few states thought

willing to give him safe haven if he stepped down (CNN, 2011). Libya was limited,

with few friends, sandwiched between two countries that have experienced their

own democratic revolution and had no sympathy for Gaddafi.

UNSC Armed Intervention

From the start of the interference, the early alliance of US, France, UK, Italy,

Norway, Qatar, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, and Spain extended to nineteen states,

with newer states mainly imposing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or delivering

military logistical support. France and the United Kingdom initially led the effort,

sharing the control with the U.S; NATO took over commands of the arms embargo

on 23 March, so-called Operation Unified Protector. The warfare in Libya was over

in late October following the killing of Col. Gaddafi, but Libya has become a failed

state par excellence. The new Libyan regime invited the NATO to extend its

presence to the end of the year (BBC, 2011), but on 27 October, the UNSC voted to

terminate NATO's military intervention in Libya by the 31 October (UN, 2011).

In addition to its strategic position, the country is relatively an important

petroleum exporter, making 2% of the planet total production and still maintaining

proven reserves of around 50 billion barrels. Other significant features of Libya’s

oil incorporate its lower cost of refining, lightness, the obvious security of its

petroleum supply and transport systems, and proximity to Europe (EIA, 2017).

Libya also has a huge potential for other sources of energy, and might deliver these


29 of 46

sources for the region and Europe. Beside its large proven oil reserves, Libya also

has the potential for the detection and exploitation of shale oil and gas refineries,

with its reserves ranking fifth in the planet (EIA, 2017), Which represents a

significant potential investment for big international corporations.

The Background of Syria

The Syrian Arab Republic is a state in Western Asia with a population of

approximately 17,185,170, neighboring Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea to the

west, Iraq to the east, Turkey to the north, Jordan to the south, and Israel to the

southwest. Syria's capital and major city is Damascus (CIA, 2017). A country of

fertile plains, deserts, and high mountains, Syria is home to multi religious and

ethnic groups, including Syrian Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians,

Mandeans, Circassians and Turks (Liliane, 2011; 64). When it comes to religion,

the majority are Muslims 92.1% including 75% Sunnis, but Assad belongs to the

minority Alawite group who govern Syria's security apparatus, estimated 12% of

the total population, 3% Druzes, 7.8% Christians and 0.1% Jews (CIA, 2017).

Syrian Civil War (2011-2016)

The Syrian crises developed out of the flux of the “Arab Spring” and

intensified to armed conflict after President Bashar al-Assad's regime aggressively

intimidated protests yelling for his departure (Ibid). The Syrian regime has since

then rejected efforts to negotiate with what Assad describes as “foreign-armed

terrorist groups” (Assad, 2012). The warfare is being battled by several groups: the

Syrian Government and its diverse factions, a movable coalition of Sunni Arab

rebel factions – comprising the Free Syrian Army – the majority-Kurdish Syrian

Democratic Forces, Salafi jihadist groups – comprising al-Nusra Front – who

frequently collaborate with the Sunni rebels, and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

called (ISIS).

Syrian opposition factions created the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and seized

control of the part nearby Aleppo and some southern areas. Over time, groups of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo


30 of 46

Syrian opposition fragmented from their original reasonable position to follow an

Islamist vision for Syria, as ISIS and Al-Nusra Front (Wyre, 2012:41). In the north,

Syrian regime army largely revoked to combat the FSA, permitting the Kurdish

YPG to step-in and announce de facto independence (CNN, 2011). In 2015, the

YPG united forces with Assyrian, Arab, Armenian and some Turkmen factions,

starting the Syrian Democratic Forces, whereas most Turkmen groups stayed with

the FSA (Sayginer, 2012: 17). Many governments and international organizations

have blamed the Syrian regime, rebel groups and ISIS for severe human rights

violations (UN, 2012). The conflict holds the record for the biggest sum ever

demanded by UN organs for a single humanitarian crisis, 6.5bn U.S Dollars worth

of needs till December 2013 (UN, 2013).

Relations with Syria

Both the Syrian regime and its opposition have received diplomatic and

militarily provision from external states, making the conflict portrayed often as a

proxy war. The key actors assisting Assad’s regime are Iran and Hezbollah. Both

are involved in the conflict both diplomatically and logistically by delivering

military training, equipment and combat troops. The Syrian regime has also

received weapons from Russia and SIGINT 17 support directly from GRU 18 , in

addition to substantial political backing up from Russia (O’Toole, 2012; 81).

The leading Syrian opposition group (the Syrian coalition) obtains diplomatic,

logistic and armed funding from the U.S., France and Britain (Galpin, 2012; 11).

Some Syrian insurgents get training from the CIA at bases in Jordan, Qatar19 and

Saudi Arabia (Sayginer, 2012: 33). Under the sponsorship of operation Timber

Sycamore20 and other secret activities, the CIA has armed and trained nearly 10,000

rebel combatants at a cost of $1 billion a year since 2012 (CNN, 2012). The Syrian

17 Intelligence derived from electronic signals and systems used by foreign targets, such as

communications systems, radars, and weapons systems. 18 Main Intelligence Agency abbreviated (GRU) is the foreign military intelligence main agency of

the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 19 Where the largest U.S. military base oversees is located. 20 Timber Sycamore is a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services (Katz,

2012).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war


31 of 46

coalition also gets logistic and governmental support from Sunni countries, most

remarkably Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia; all the three major supportive

countries have not, however, given any troops for direct contribution in the war,

although Turkey was involved in border confrontations with the Syrian Military

forces. The Independent and The Financial Times reported that Qatar had funded

the Syrian uprising by as much as $3 billion. Saudi Arabia has appeared as the

leading group to finance and arm the rebels (2011).

The Turkish regime has also been blamed of serving ISIS by turning a blind

eye to illegal transport of armaments, battalions, stolen antiquities and oil within its

southern borders (Sayginer, 2012: 36). As of 2015, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey

are openly supporting the Army of the opposition group. On 1 February 2016, an

official beginning of the mediated Geneva Syria peace talks was proclaimed by the

United Nations but the war continues (UN, 2016).

UNSC Non-Intervention

There are a number of plausible political, and economic strategic reasons for

Russian and Chinese interests on the Syria crises. Russia has three causes to

continue to support al-Assad’s regime. First, Syria is a key player in the Russian

foreign policy; Syria has permitted for the past 40 years a naval station at Tartus to

the Russians. It is the only peripheral maritime port Moscow has, a base in the

Mediterranean region, which is a key passage for intra-European business and oil

influx from the Middle East (Sayginer, 2012; Kramer, 2012).

Second, Moscow’s backing of the al-Assad government is part of a strategy

against what it seems as unwarranted Western interference in sovereign nations’

internal affairs. Syria is Moscow’s last existing ally in the Arab region; if Damascus

falls, Putin could lose much of its impact in the area (Katz, 2012: 4). Furthermore,

Russia has a noteworthy economic concern worth roughly 20 billion US Dollars,

important armaments contracts and energy assets that might be gone if al-Assad’s

government falls (O’Toole, 2012: 99; Galpin, 2012: 13). With great strategic

significance, the planned Qatar-Turkey pipeline of natural gas is going from the

Qatari-Iranian biggest world field of natural gas to Turkey, where it can link with

the Nabucco pipeline to supply European necessities as well as Turkey. The only


32 of 46

road leading to Turkey traverses Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria (Nafeez, 2013).

Syria's logic for declining the Qatari plan was interpreted as “to protect the interests

of its Russian ally, who is Europe's top supplier of natural gas” (Ibid, 73).

Beijing’s calculations are overlapping those of Moscow’s to a large extent,

but in a more complex way. Unlike Russia, China had until recently waited quite

distant from local politics while it almost exclusively concentrated on economy

growth. Further, Beijing does not have any extensive economic or military stakes in

Syria. For instance, Syria–China trade in 2010 was estimated at only 2.48 billion

U.S. dollars, accounting for only 0.08 % of Beijing’s total foreign trade.

Meanwhile, China’s imports from Syria were estimated only around 40 million U.S.

Dollars including nearly no gas or oil commodities (Xing, 2012).

China has strategic and commercial welfares in the region that call for

supporting Syria. Commercially, if Damascus was to fall, Iran might lose a crucial

ally and a source of regional influence, and the next to fall would be Iran, where

Beijing does have significant economic interests (Wexler, 2012). Besides, if Tehran

were also to fall, China’s dependency on Russian oil imports might rise, and

confuse further Sino-Russian affairs. Moreover, the longer the Syrian conflict lasts,

the longer the likelihood of intensification with Tehran might be postponed, which

means Beijing’s will not have to worry about the issues of energy supply.

Strategically, the Chinese veto helped to reinforce relations with Moscow, whose

sustenance to Beijing is more considerable than that of the Arab world.

5. Analysis

Main Findings

Throughout the case studies I discovered significant evidence that both

conflicts represent a geostrategic interest for UN permanent members but to

different extents. While Libya is exporting almost all its energy production 97,1%

to Europe, which denotes a counterbalance for its dependency on the Russian piped

energy, Syrian is located next to the hub of the world petroleum exporters, namely

the Persian Golf region, but particularly, neighboring the world's largest gas field,


33 of 46

shared between Qatar and Iran21 (IEA, 2017). It’s not by chance that the largest U.S.

military base22 overseas is located in the state of Qatar.

In 2012, ANSA Mediterranean23 indicated that Qatar's connection with the

Syrian conflict was mostly centered on its aim to construct a pipeline to Turkey

across Syria (see figure 7 bellow), “Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to

receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way. Qatar along with the Turks would like

to remove Al-Assad...” (ANSA, 2012; My translation).

Figure 5: Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas Pipelines.

21 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the field holds an estimated of 51 trillion

cubic meters (50 billion barrels of natural gas condensates). 22 The largest US base in the Middle East accommodating approx. 10 000 troops is located at the

“Al Udeid” Air Base in Qatar (Lostumbo, 2013). 23 The Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA) is the leading wire service in Italy.

Iran-Iraq-Syria Pipeline (Russia-backed)

Qatar-Turkey Pipeline (US-backed)

)


34 of 46

The purple line indicates the planned Qatar-Turkey Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) pipeline and all of the states highlighted in red, which denote a new alliance

gathered quickly after Turkey finally – in exchange for NATO’s consent on

Erdogan’s politically driven war with the PKK24 – decided to permit the US to fly

combat missions against ISIS targets from Incirlik. Bashar al-Assad refused to

participate in the projected U.S backed pipeline and now we are seeing what

happens when you’re a Middle-East powerful-man and you choose not to help

something the U.S and Saudi Arabia want to get done (Barry, 2007). Knowing Syria

was a critical piece in its energy strategy, Turkey struggled to influence President

Bashar Assad to change this Iranian pipeline, and to labor with the wished-for

Qatar-Turkey pipeline, which would eventually please Turkey and the GCC states’

mission for control over gas supplies, who are the U.S’s allies. But after Assad

denied Turkey’s proposal, Turkey and its allies turn out to be the major architects of

Syria’s “civil war” (Kepel, 2014).

The Russian and Chinese’s experience with the Libyan emergency had direct

effects on their choices to veto resolutions that might permit Western military

involvement in Syria. In the beginning of the conflict in Libya, both powers refused

any Western intervention. However, in February 2011, Russia and China voted in

favor of the UN request of sanctions against the Libyan regime, implicating a travel

ban on Qaddafi and his entourage, freezing the assets of the Colonel, an arms

embargo and a recommendation of the situation to the International Criminal Court

(ICC). Successively, in the March vote on air strikes against the Libyan regime at

the Security Council, and China abstained from vetoing authorization of the strikes

(Buckley, 2012). This decision was perceived as deviant and perhaps a shift in both

Russia and China’s attitudes regarding the Westphalian non-interference doctrine.

NATO’s fighting against Libya moved far beyond their predictions.

Therefore, the Libyan tragedy assisted as a good sample of the Security Council

resolutions being surpassed. The two powers felt that the West violated the terms of

the resolution 1973 by pioneering actions that were never projected when they

24 The Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK in Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanêis a left-wing

Iraq. Since 1984 the PKK has waged an armed struggle against the organization based in Turkey and

)232; 2007mination for the Kurds in Turkey (Hussein, deter-Turkish state for equal rights and self.


35 of 46

approved the resolution (Yun, 2012; 15). After having been misleaded once, they

could not afford to be deceived again by the West into authorizing the Council

sanctions or intervention against Syria (Chaziza, 2013; 78).

China and Russia noticed that by abstaining from the Libya resolution, the

West gained all and lost nothing, meanwhile, they got nothing but lost everything.

For both states, soft-balancing behavior is a vital policy to counter any further effort

of Western armed intervention in the region, and further escalation of the crises in

Syria. Moscow and Beijing’s soft-balancing conduct incorporates diplomatic

cooperation and their coordination at the Council, Shanghai Cooperation

Organization, and Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS); they

supported the Syrian military forces by logistical army backing; and delivered

technical support and financial assistance to survive the international sanctions

(Matar, 2012; My translation).

The two permanent members defended their vetoes as measures of avoidance;

yet, another Western military involvement and more intensification of the chaos in

the region might fortify further U.S hegemony and deteriorate the Sino-Russian

allies in the Middle East. For example, the Chinese deputy UN envoy Wang Min

advocated that pressurizing only the Syrian government will “cause further

escalation of the turmoil and let the crisis spill over to other countries in the region”

(Arab News, 2012). Furthermore, Moscow’s strategic sustenance might also be

prolonged to East Asia while the Arab world has no such power (Yu, 2012).

Russia and China might benefit from the conditions in Syria. First, The

Chinese and Russian vetoes permit them to develop more political leverage and

trade with governments, like Iran for instance. Second, delaying the crises in Syria

decreases the risk and the chance of war over Iran’s nuclear program. By protecting

the Syrian government and stopping a pro-Western substitute, China and Russia are

in fact safeguarding that Iran holds its regional backing up and will not become a

prey to another Western-led attack. Lastly, it might be in Russia and China’s

interest to practice their right of veto to force the international community to

acknowledge and regard its role in the UN Security Council (Yan, 2012). Thus, the

examples could be observations of the Sino-Russian soft balancing strategy, to

support instead their ally gas pipeline proposal, named the “Islamic gas pipeline” by


36 of 46

some Western sources, and the “Friendship Pipeline” by the regimes involved25.

The Iran-Iraq-Syrian natural gas pipeline26 was previously proposed by the

National Iranian Gas Export Company (NIGEC) to supply the European markets via

Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well as the road markets involving Iraq, Syria, and

Lebanon (UPI, 2011). The project was abandoned after the Swiss energy company

Elektrizitätsgesellschaft Laufenburg terminated its contract with Iran in October

2010 due to the US sanctions against Iran (Jerusalem Post, 2011; SRF Tagesschau,

2010).

In July 2011 Iran, Syria and Iraq discussed a plan to sign a contract worth

round 6bn U.S Dollars to build a pipeline going from South Pars to the European

market, through these states and Lebanon and then under the Mediterranean, with a

refinery and related infrastructure in Damascus (Jerusalem Post, 2011). One

interpretation is that the geo-strategic interest of permanent members was stronger

in the Syrian case. An explanation could be that conditions in the Libya case did not

affect much the Sino-Russian geo-strategic interests, but represented a huge energy

issue to the West that could disturb the powers equilibrium.

It might be explained also that the power vacuum after the death of Gadhafi

served the Russian interest. As The Libyan petroleum represent concurrence to

Moscow in the European markets. A destabilized Libya means less export of oil to

Europe, which will directly affect the oil price in favor of Russia as a major

alternative supplier to Europe. This goes hand in hand with previous research and

the foundation of the realist school, which shows that states behave as unites driven

by the reason of state “La raison d’état” to pursuit their national interest, and self-

help, which is identified as the action code of all states under the anarchic system

(Waltz, 1979: 111).

In sum, the findings might be understood as supporting to the thesis

hypothesis, which thus can represent at least one rationalization to the statistical

correlation found by Iwanami (2011), between veto powers geo-strategic interests

and the UNSC interventions.

25 Naturalgaseurope.com, 2011 26 The pipeline was planned to be 5,600 km (3,500 mi) long and have a diameter of 142 cm (56

inches) (UPI, 2011).


37 of 46

6. Summary and Conclusions

In this thesis, I have attempted to answer the research question: Why does the

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) intervene in some humanitarian crises,

but not in others, and under which conditions? My proposal described the negative

correlation revealed by Iwanami (2011). In theory, the analysis sought for answers

by studying the main factors that affect the likelihood of third-party decision to

intervene, as suggested in the literature on conflict management and civil war. To

explain this variation in the UNSC response to humanitarian crises, the paper

looked at the aftermath of veto powers soft balancing, which depends mostly on the

magnitude of risk to great powers geo-strategic interests, and any potential reforms

in the international equilibrium of powers. Farther, the analysis presented the

protection of economic interests in the target state as one of many factors

considered when deciding to intervene in a domestic war.

While not denying the role of other dynamics motivating the opportunity and

willingness of UN permanent members to intervene in the civil wars of other states,

the study sought to situate energy trade ties in the context of civil conflict

intervention. I do not claim that the existence of self-interest in the conflict or even

pro-intervention lobbying automatically yields a decision to intervene. Rather,

policy makers perceive energy reliance as an important variable in any political

geo-strategic equation. Therefore, the magnitude of risks to major powers national

energy security increases the chances that governments will take actions, involving

armed intervention if necessary.

The empirical findings offer support to the main argument that trade ties work

in ways similar to existing strategic military coalitions – where the motivation to

intervene or not, depends, to a large extent, on prudence in the geostrategic cost-

benefit calculus, regarding national and alliances energy security, along with some

interplay with international norms. The paper further contends that such

involvements to defend existing economic ties are more likely when the location of

the domestic conflict is geo-strategically significant, in terms of energy exports and


38 of 46

infrastructure investments. In addition, a new suggestion is made, that UN decisions

to intervene can be viewed today as the aftermath of veto powers soft-balancing

calculus, which merely depend on the extent to which a potential intervention might

reform the powers equilibrium in the anarchic international realm. Thus, the main

contribution of the present research underlines the role of energy ties in predictions

of which states are expected to interfere in domestic conflicts of other states.

This implication may seem to validate the self-centered nature of international

relations. However, it should also be noted that gathering information about who is

engaged in specific conflict resolution might serve as an early warning system.

This may help counteract conflicts from escalating, and, if so, assemble coalitions

of interested actors ready to bear the cost of preventing the violence. In other words,

the selfish nature of the international relation might also serve in the greater peace

work.

*****


39 of 46

7. Bibliography

Al Jazeera (19 March 2011) "Libya Live Blog – March 19". Archived from the

original on 19 March 2011 (Retrieved 19 December 2016).

Arab News. 2012. ‘Assad’s artillery, combat aircraft terrorize Syrians’, 5 August,

http://www.arabnews.com/middle-east/assad%E2%80%99s-artillery-combat-

aircraft-terrorize-syrians (accessed on 1 January 2017).

Aydin, Aysegul (2010) Where do states go? Strategy in civil war intervention.

Conflict Management and Peace Science 27(1): 47–66.

(2012) Foreign Powers and Intervention in Armed Conflicts.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Batty, David (19 March 2011) Military Action Begins Against Libya. The Guardian.

Archived from the original on 22 March 2011. Retrieved 2 December 2016.

BBC News. 20 March 2011"Libya: US, UK and France attack Gaddafi forces".

Archived from the original on 20 March 2011. Retrieved 2 Jan 2017.

BBC. 26 October 2011"Libya's Mustafa Abdul Jalil asks Nato to stay longer".

Retrieved 27 Dec 2016.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams (2008) The Craft of

Research (3rd ed), The University of Chicago Press.

Brooks, Stephen G. and William C. Wohlforth (2008) "World out of Balance"

Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 22.

Buckley, Caitlin A. 2012. ‘Learning from Libya, Acting in Syria’, Journal of

Strategic Security, Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer, 81–104. (Retrieved 19 December

2016).

Carment, David & Patrick James (2004) Third-party states in ethnic conflict:

Identifying the domestic determinants of intervention. In: Steven E Lobell &

Philip Mauceri (eds) Ethnic Conflict and International Politics: Explaining

Diffusion and Escalation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–34.

Chaziza, Mordechai. 2013. ‘The Arab Spring: Implications for Chinese policy’,

https://web.archive.org/web/20110320053754/http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972


40 of 46

Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 2, Summer, 73–83.

CNN. (19 March 2011)"French Fighter Jets Deployed over Libya". Archived from

the original on 22 March 2011. Retrieved 02 Jan 2017.

CNN. (22 October 2011) “Libya’s new leaders declare liberation”. Statement by

Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, vice chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council,

Available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-23/africa/world_africa_libya-

main_1_misrata-mahmoud-jibril-abdul-hafiz-ghoga?s=PM:AFRICA .

Accessed December 1, 2016.

CIA. (2017) The world fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world-factbook/geos/ly.html

Collier, Paul & Anke Hoeffler (2004) Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford

Economic Papers 56(4): 563–595.

Collier, Paul; Lani Elliot, Håvard Hegre, Anke Hoeffler, Martha Reynal-Querol &

Nicholas Sambanis (2003) Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and

Development Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Cooper, Andrew Fenton, Heine, Jorge & Thakur, Ramesh Chandra (red.)

(2013).The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy.

Chomsky, Noam (1988) Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books.

p. 306.

Cutrone, Ellen A & Benjamin O Fordham (2010) Commerce and imagination: The

sources of concern about international human rights in the US Congress.

International Studies Quarterly 54(3): 633–655.

Crawford, Alex (23 March 2011) Evidence of Massacre by Gaddafi Forces. Sky

News.

Dannreuther, Roland. & Ostrowski, Wojciech. (2013) Global resources. Conflict

and cooperation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Doyle Michael W. Nicholas Sambanis (2007) The UN Record on Peacekeeping

Operations, International Journal, Vol. 62, No. 3, What Kind of Security?

Afghanistan and Beyond (2007), p. 518.

European Jewish Press (19 March 2011) "Paris Summit Talks To Launch Military

Action in Libya"... Archived from the original on 16 May 2011. Retrieved 26

March 2016.

Fagre, Nathan & Louis T Wells Jr (1982) Bargaining power of multinationals and

https://web.archive.org/web/20110322034154/http:/edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html


41 of 46

host governments. Journal of International Business Studies 25(1): 9–23.

Fordham, Benjamin O (2008) Revisionism reconsidered: Exports and American

intervention in World War I. International Organization 61(2): 277–310.

Findley, Michael G & Tze Kwang Teo (2006) Rethinking third-party interventions

into civil wars: An actor-centric approach. Journal of Politics 68 (4): 828–837.

Fahim, Kareem; Kirkpatrick, David D. (23 February 2011) "Qaddafi's Grip on the

Capital Tightens as Revolt Grows". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 Dec

2016.

Fearon, James D. (1995) Rationalist Expectations for War, International

Organization 49 (3):379-414.

Findley, Michael G & Tze Kwang Teo (2006) Rethinking third-party interventions

into civil wars: An actor-centric approach. Journal of Politics 68(4): 828–837.

Finnemore, Martha (1996) Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention, in

The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, ed.

Peter Katzenstein, New York, Columbia University Press.

Galpin, Richard (2012) ‘Russian Arms Shipments Bolster Syria’s Embattled Assad’,

10 January, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16797818

(accessed on 25 Nov 2016).

Gent, Stephen E (2008) Going in when it counts: Military intervention and the

outcome of civil conflicts. International Studies Quarterly 52(4): 713–735.

Getz, Kathleen A & Jennifer Oetzel (2009) MNE strategic intervention in violent

conflict: Variations based on conflict characteristics. Journal of Business

Ethics 89(4): 375-386.

Gibbs, David N (1991) The Political Economy of Third World Intervention: Mines,

Money, and US Policy in the Congo Crisis. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Gibson, Ginger (8 April 2011) "Polled N.J. Voters Back Obama's Decision To

Establish No-Fly Zone in Libya", Journal of International Studies, Boston.

Retrieved 2 Jan 2017.

Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2007) Transnational dimensions of civil war. Journal of

Peace Research 44(3): 293–309.

Gowa, Joanne & Edward D. Mansfield, 2004. ‘Alliances, Imperfect Markets, and

Major- Power Trade’, International Organization 58(4): 775–805.


42 of 46

Hedström, Peter, and Richard Svedberg, Eds. (1998) Social Mechanisms: An

Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Iwanami, Yukari (2011) Setting the agenda of the UN Security Council. Paper

prepared for the 2011 annual meeting of the American Political Science

Association. Department of political science, University of Rochester, August

12, 2011.

Jack S. Levy (2004) What do Great Powers Balance Against and When? in T.V.

Paul, J.J. Wirtz and M. Fortmann (eds) Balance of Power: Theory and

Practice in the 21st Century.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, pp.37.

Jerusalem Post, 26 January 2011, Swiss adopt EU sanctions on Teheran (accessed

on 1 January 2017).

Joseph S. Nye. Jr. (1990) ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy, (80), pp.153-171.

Katz, Mark N. 2012. ‘The Moscow–Damascus Alliance: A Tangled Tale’, CNN. 28

May, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/russia-syria-relations/

(accessed on 17 October 2016).

Kathman, Jacob (2010) Civil war contagion and neighbor state intervention.


Keohane, Robert O & Joseph S Nye Jr (2000) Globalization: What’s new? What’s

not? And so what? Foreign Policy 118: 104–119.

Lemke, Douglas & Patrick Regan (2004) Interventions as influence. In: Paul F

Diehl (ed.) The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 145–168.

Long, Andrew G., 2003. ‘Defense Pacts and International Trade’, Journal of Peace

Research 40(5): 537–552.

Mansfield, Edward D. & Rachel Bronson, 1997. ‘Alliances, Preferential Trading

Arrangements, and International Trade’, American Political Science Review

91(1): 94–107.

Matar, Hosam. 2012. ‘Syrian Crisis: Soft Balancing Against US’, Al Aknbar.17

September, http://english. al-akhbar.com/node/12309 (accessed on 25

November, 2016).

McCormick, James M (2009) American Foreign Policy and Process. Boston, MA:


43 of 46

Wadsworth.

Mitchell, Christopher R (1970) Civil strife and the involvement of external parties.


Michael W, Doyle. (2016) The politics of global humanitarianism: The

responsibility to protect before and after Libya. International Politics 53:114-

31. Online publication date: 8-Dec-2015.noindex CrossRef /noindex.

Mearsheimer, John (2001) The Tragedy of the Great Power Politics, in Anarchy

and the Struggle for Power (New York: Norton, 2001), 30.

Moravcsik, Andrew (1997) Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of

international politics. International Organization 51(4): 513–553.

Naturalgaseurope.com (11 February 2013) Some Reasons to Materialize Iran, Iraq,

and Syria’s Gas Pipeline. (Accessed on 3 December 2016).

Nafeez Ahmed, theguardian.com, 30 August 2013, Syria intervention plan fueled by

oil interests, not chemical weapon concern.

O’Toole, James. 2012. ‘Billions at Stake as Russia Backs Syria’, CNN. 10 February,

http://money.cnn. com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/ (accessed

on 3 December 2016).

Pape, Robert A., "Soft Balancing against the United States", International Security,

30: 1 (2005): 7-45.

Paul, Spiegel B, Phuoc Le, Mija-Tesse Ververs and Peter Salama (2007)

Occurrence and overlap of natural disasters, complex emergencies and

epidemics during the past decade (1995–2004) Conflict and Health1:2

Paul, T.V. "Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy", International Security, 30:

1 (2005): 46-71.

Pearson, Fredric (1974) Geographic proximity and foreign military intervention.

Journal of Conflict Resolution 18(3): 432–460.

Pearson, Fredric; Robert Baumann & Jeffrey Pickering (1994) Military intervention

and realpolitik. In: Frank Wayman & Paul F Diehl (eds) Reconstructing

Realpolitik. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 205–225.

Powner, Leanne C. (2015) Empirical Research and Writing: A Student’s Practical

Guide, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Regan, Patrick M. (2000) Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in

Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ip.2015.35


44 of 46

(2002) “Third-Party Intervention and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts”.

Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(1): 55–73.

Roberts, Hugh (2011) Who said Gaddafi had to go?, London Review of Books, Vol.

33, Number 22, November 17, 2011.

Robert A. Pape (2005) "Soft Balancing against the United States", International

Security, 30: 1 (2005): 36.

Ross, Michael L (2004) How do natural resources influence civil war? Evidence

from thirteen cases. International Organization 58(1): 35–67.

Saleyhan, Idean & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (2006) Refugees and the spread of

civil war. International Organization 60(2): 335–366.

Siverson, Randolph M & Harvey Starr (1990) Opportunity, willingness, and the

diffusion of war. American Political Science Review 84(1): 47–67.

Schachter, Oscar (1991). International law in theory and practice. Dordrecht: M.

Nijhoff Publishers

Sayginer, Ozge. 2012. ‘Why Russia will Never Back Down? Reasons Behind

Supporting the Assad Regime’, The European Strategist, 20 June, accessed on

3 January 2017).

Smith, David (12 September 2011). "Murder and torture 'carried out by both sides'

of uprising against Libyan regime". The Guardian (accessed on 1 January

2017).

SRF Tagesschau, (29 October 2010) EG Laufenburg legt Gas-Deal mit Iran auf Eis,

(accessed on 2 January 2017).

Söderberg Kovacs, Mimmi. (2007) From Rebellion to Politics. The Transformation

of Rebel Groups to Political Parties in Civil War Peace Processes. Report

No. 77, Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala

University.

Schumacher, M.M. (red.) (1980). Enhanced recovery of residual and heavy oils. 2.

ed. Park Ridge, N.J.:

Teorell, Jan, and Torsten Svensson, (2007) Att fråga och att svara.

Samhällsvetenskaplig metod. (Asking Questions and Answering. Social

Science Methodology). Malmö: Liber.

The Economist (Apr 2, 2016) Available at: www.economist.com/.../21695855-

americas-economy-benefits-hugely-trade-its-costs-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security


45 of 46

United Nations. (17 March 2011) "Security Council Approves 'No-Fly Zone' over

Libya, Authorizing 'All Necessary Measures' To Protect Civilians in Libya, by

a Vote of Ten For, None Against, with Five Abstentions". Archived from the

original on 19 March 2011. Retrieved 19 Dec 2016.

United Nations (2013) United Nation disaster assessment and coordination

UNDAC, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Field

Handbook. 6th edition, Geneva. Available at:

http://www.un.org/en/sections/priorities/humanitarian-assistance/

United Nations, (24 May 2012) UN human rights probe panel reports continuing

'gross' violations in Syria. Retrieved 12 December 2016.

United Press International, (25 July 2011), 'Islamic pipeline' seeks Euro gas

markets, (UPI), Retrieved 18 December 2016

Waltz, Kenneth. (2008) "Realism and International Politics" New York: Rutledge,

2008, 137.

(1979) Theory of International Relations, Addison-Wesley Publishing,

1979.

(1959) Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University

Press, 188.

Walt, Stephen. (1985) "Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power",

International Security, 9: 4. pp. 3-43.

Wexler, Robert. 2012. ‘Israel and Iran: An Attack Might Be Necessary, but Not

Yet’, World Affairs. June, 2012.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/israel-and-iran-attack-might-be-

necessary-not-yet (accessed on 22 December 2016).

Wheeler, Nicholas J. (2000). Saving strangers: humanitarian intervention in

international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wyre, Davies (27 July 2012) Crisis in Syria emboldens country's Kurds. BBC

News. (Accessed on 4 January 2017).

Xing, Qu. 2012. ‘The UN Charter, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Syria

Issue’, CIIS. 16 April, http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2012-

04/16/content_4943041.htm (accessed on 4 January 2017).

Yan Xuetong. 2012. ‘China’s Veto on Syria: A View from China’, Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace. 8 February (accessed on Dec, 2016).

https://web.archive.org/web/20110319093321/http:/www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm


46 of 46

Yu, Bin. 2012. ‘China–Russia Relations: Succession, Syria...and the Search for

Putin’s Soul’. Comparative Connections. (Accessed on 4 January 2017).

Yun, Sun. 2012. ‘Syria: What China has Learned from its Libya Experience’, Asia

Pacific Bulletin.

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/apb152_1.pdf

accessed on 2 January 2017.

M. MALIK MOURTADAY - DiVA portaluu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1144260/FULLTEXT01.pdfWhen it...

Documents

Transcript of M. MALIK MOURTADAY - DiVA portaluu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1144260/FULLTEXT01.pdfWhen it...