İdealist ve realist yaklaşımlar arasında barışı koruma operasyonlarının karşılaştırılması: MINURSO örneği

How to secure peace and protect security is one of the essential questions that each theory of International Relations (IR) tends to have an answer to. Idealism and realism as one of two fundamental pillars of the IR world have an ongoing debate on how international organizations and the international system presented by the United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations will contribute to achieving the ultimate answer to this question. This thesis examines each theory's approach to the subject of international security and peace. On one hand, the idealists are characterized by their optimistic view and faith in international cooperation and their belief that peace can be achieved if all of the states are gathered under the international organizations' umbrella. On the other hand, the realists believe that war is a must and sees no benefits in international cooperation while the system is anarchic. The UN after its establishment in 1945, founded Peacekeeping operations as a means to maintain peace and security in times of crisis, one of these long-lasting operations is the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). This research will point out Which theoretical framework is best suited to resolve ongoing global conflicts? How can the success of a peacekeeping operation be measured, and can its effectiveness be improved by studying the perspectives of idealists and realists? Why did the MINURSO not succeed in organizing the Sahara referendum, and what can be done to improve its effectiveness? Document analysis is being used to answer these questions.