Säkerhetsrådets argumentation kring Syrien och Libyen - En studie genom två IR perspektiv

Sammanfattning: Territorial and temporal are the civil wars in Libya and Syria relatively similar, despite the similarities, the events have given different results regarding resolutions in the Security Council. My questions are: How can you find the IR theories, realism and liberalism, in the arguments surrounding Libya and Syria in the UN Security Council? Can we find arguments that are both realistic and liberal in the meeting protocols? Realism and liberalism are two different theories of international relations which I will use to analyze how the discussions in the Security Council go. The cases that will be discussed in the UN Security Council-meeting protocols are the situation in Libya and Syria. In the protocols, the states argue for and against four different draft resolutions. The main arguments from the states are about protecting the civilian population in Libya and Syria. That is, to promote their universal human rights and freedoms. For these arguments, there are both realistic and liberal perspectives. If one were to see this from a realistic standpoint you might say that: the states talk about protecting human rights only is a smokescreen for their self-interest in the significant country. From a liberal perspective however you might say that is in fact for protecting the human rights which everybody gains from. In the paper, I came to the conclusion that one can see most of the arguments from the states from two angles depending on how one chooses to see.