In recent years, the UN Security Council has increasingly been involved in domestic conflicts. To explain this development, two lines of arguments have been used most often, both referring to the end of the Cold War. The first line of argument holds that the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to more domestic conflicts that manifest themselves at the international level, and the UN has simply responded to that growing problem. In the second line of argument, the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to an end of the anticipation and use of Soviet veto power in the Security Council, leading to more opportunities for the UN to take a more proactive stance in domestic conflicts. How plausible are these explanations? In this article, the argument is made that both lines of explanation rest partly on faulty premises.
