For the student of the United Nations, the Falklands crisis offers a valuable case study of the strengths and weaknesses of that organisation as an agency for promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes through its role as a ‘third party’ concerned to act impartially in mediation of a conflict between two member states. At first sight the failure of the United Nations, despite several resolutions of the Security Council and the ‘good offices’ of the Secretary-General, to avert the outbreak of armed hostilities between Britain and Argentina in late April 1982 and, once begun, to achieve a ceasefire appears a confirmation of its weaknesses rather than a vindication of its strengths as an independent and effective crisis manager. Thus in the Falklands dispute — it could be argued — the UN did little more than mirror the conflict in an institutionalised setting, providing through the mechanism of the Security Council a propaganda forum for the warring parties and their supporters and exercising little, if any, influence on the course of the dispute and its eventual outcome.
KeywordsSecurity Council Falkland Island United Nations Security Council Good Office Negotiate Settlement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- 2.J. Pearce, ‘The Falkland Islands Dispute’, The World Today, 38 (1982) 161.Google Scholar
- 3.Ibid., 161.Google Scholar
- 4.P. Willetts, ‘Latin America, the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement’ in Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Research, II, 1982–3 (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1984).Google Scholar
- 5.Ibid.Google Scholar
- 8.Ibid., 170.Google Scholar
- 11.Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, The Battle for the Falklands (London: Pan Books, 1983) p. 204. This is the most detailed account of the crisis available and the author acknowledges his debt to both authors.Google Scholar
- 18.Alan James, ‘Kurt Waldheim: Diplomats’ Diplomat’, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 37 (1983) 94.Google Scholar
- 32.Phil Williams, ‘Miscalculation, Crisis Management and the Falklands Conflict’, The World Today, 39 (1983) 147.Google Scholar
- 33.Ibid., 148.Google Scholar
- 34.Ibid., 148.Google Scholar