THE DOUBLE STANDARD IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; WHY THE UNITED NATIONS FAIL TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO GAZA COMPARED TO OTHER CONFLICTS

Abstract

This study explores the phenomenon of double standards in international relations, with a specific focus on the United Nations' (UN) response to the Gaza conflict compared to other global crises. Despite widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the UN has struggled to effectively implement resolutions, enforce ceasefires, or impose sanctions, raising important questions about political alliances and selective intervention. The research adopts realist theory as its theoretical framework, which emphasizes the role of state power and national interests in shaping international relations. A comparative analysis approach was used to assess the UN’s interventions in Gaza versus other global conflicts, such as in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. Data was collected through content analysis of UN resolutions, speeches, and official documents, alongside a review of secondary literature. The findings reveal that the political interests of powerful member states, selective humanitarianism, and the complex nature of international diplomacy significantly influence the UN’s actions, leading to an uneven response to humanitarian crises. The study concludes that these dynamics hinder the UN's effectiveness in addressing long-standing conflicts like Gaza. Based on these findings, it is recommended that the UN reassess its operational mechanisms and adopt more consistent, impartial strategies for conflict resolution to ensure more equitable humanitarian responses.