Forms of International Crisis Policies That Perpetuate Crises Rather Than Resolve Them -Evidence from the Cuban, Korean, and Palestinian Crises-

Abstract

Many scholars of international crisis dynamics have demonstrated that “international crises are often deferred rather than resolved.” This is due to several influencing factors such as the size of states, political blocs, the veto power, globalization, and many others, which in reality act as obstacles to the resolution of international crises. One example of this is what is known as the Middle East crisis, the Palestine crisis, or the two-state crisis. It is therefore necessary to examine the problem of combining crisis existence with the will to manage it.

Are international crises truly in need of management or of political will for resolution? This study aims to: provide a theoretical understanding and description of crises; present some of the most prominent crises of our time (the Cuban, Korean, and Palestinian crises); and show the interests of major powers in maintaining crises in order to serve their various interests and support just causes in the world. This article has been divided into alphabetically ordered sections from (A) to (I), starting with the Cuban crisis model, then the Korean crisis, and finally the Palestinian crisis. As for the findings, they reveal the reality of major powers rebelling against international law and benefiting from the crises of weaker states. This is sufficient to uncover the confirmed truth that rights are taken, not granted...