How Not to Do UN Peacekeeping

Author:

de Coning Cedric1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) Norway Oslo

Abstract

Abstract Looking back over the past seventy-five years of UN peacekeeping, the most enduring question has been: Is peacekeeping effective? Historically, most peacekeeping operations have been. However, peacekeeping is currently suffering from a significant trust deficit. One important factor that differentiates contemporary peacekeeping operations with a stabilization mandate from the historic record is the absence of a viable political or peace process. When security is not directed to serve a peace process, it produces a stabilization dilemma: the more effectively a peace operation protects and achieves stability, the less incentive there is for ruling political elites to find long-term political solutions. This dilemma generates several perverse effects, including prolonging the conflict, trapping operations in place with no exit options, increasing the resilience of armed groups, and embedding peacekeeping in the local political economy. The article identifies five factors that help prevent the stabilization dilemma and influence the effectiveness of peace operations.

Publisher

Brill

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Safety Research,General Environmental Science,Sociology and Political Science

Reference24 articles.

1. Aoi, Chiyuki, Cedric de Coning, and Ramesh Thakur. The Unintended Consequences of Peacekeeping (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007).

2. Bennett, Will, Riccardo Vinci, and David Young. Challenges to the Stabilisation Landscape: the Case for Rethinking Stability (Geneva: Interpeace, 2022).

3. Berdal, Mats, and Jake Sherman. The Political Economy of Civil War and UN Peace Operations (London: Routledge, 2023).

4. Day, Adam, Aditi Gorur, Victoria K. Holt, and Charles T. Hunt. The Political Practice of Peacekeeping: How Strategies for Peace Operations Are Developed and Implemented (New York: United Nations University, 2020).

5. Day, Adam, and Charles T. Hunt. “Distractions, Distortions and Dilemmas: The Externalities of Protecting Civilians in United Nations Peacekeeping.” Civil Wars 24 (1) (2022a), 97–116. DOI 10.1080/13698249.2022.1995680.

Cited by 8 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3