The Selectivity of the United Nations Security Council in Dealing with Humanitarian Crises – Gaza as a Model

Abstract

 This study examines the phenomenon of selectivity within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding its response to humanitarian crises, with a specific focus on the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip. It provides a rigorous analysis of the legal and political frameworks governing the Council’s mandate, exploring how the strategic interests of permanent members—exerted through the veto power—instrumentally shape Council resolutions. The research argues that such dynamics result in a marked disparity in international responses, oscillating between swift intervention and systemic inertia. The Palestinian cause is presented as a quintessential case study of this selective enforcement, where critical resolutions are frequently obstructed despite persistent and grave violations of international law. Ultimately, the study underscores the urgent necessity for structural reform within the international system to ensure greater accountability and impartiality in the Council’s handling of global humanitarian issues.