Abstract

Does lack of consensus within the Global Social Order (GSO) affect the actions against violation of human rights in Darfur? The question that has been raised covets an answer that provides a clearer picture on why the GSO and its principal representative, the United Nations, is still more or less passively observing the violations of the human rights law, initialized and stipulated by them. The GSO has been frequently analyzed and critiqued mainly from political and economical sides. However, this paper proposes a critique from a side of violation of fundamental personal human rights. Even though some of the leading nations and international institutions have joined masses in expressing their concern and disapproval of the atrocities, the problem has not been addressed in a way that would stop the violation of human rights. In this study we firstly presented an overview of the most important events since 2003 representing the violation of human rights in Darfur. Subsequently, we presented the reaction of major governmental and intergovernmental institutions over the same time period to determine whether there is a consensus within the GSO to react on violation of human rights. Following this, we presented actual GSO actions taken in Darfur. This research showed that the lack of consensus within the GSO is a factor that prevents the GSO to address the atrocities in Darfur efficiently. Additionally, it appears that the Arab League is a decisive factor for any future action to be taken in Sudan since their support for the AU-UN hybrid troops made it possible.