Özet:

The United Nations (UN) has adopted effective resolutions since its foundation, particularly during 1990’s, for the sake of promotion and protection of global peace and security. Especially following the UN’s firm stance for the Yugoslavia crisis, the hopes for global peace have remarkably raised. The Cold Was had come to the end and the states from the opposite alliance blocks of the Cold War were enabled to make decisions altogether in order to protect global peace. In the UN Security Council’s practice, even the idea that the concept of “positive peace,” which regards the internal peace of states as a matter to be addressed by international community, could substitute the concept of “negative peace,” which implies the peace situation only among states and does not regard internal peace of states because of the main principle of non-intervention enacted in Article 2/7 of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, these hopes could not last long. As Russia could gather its strength after a short while, the decision-making mechanism of the international community became solely interest-based once again. In this article, the author is trying to examine the question whether the UN Security Council has endorsed the concept of “positive peace” or “negative peace” while its approach to Mali case, which is a remarkable international crisis occurred in 2000’s.

Anahtar Kelimeler: