In the last decade UN peace operations have begun to explicitly seek 'stabilization' in the states to which they are deployed. Despite the term being included in the titles of four missions, three of which are amongst the four largest operations currently deployed, and stabilization activities being included in the mandates, there is no UN-wide interpretation of the term. Instead, the mandates include varying activities under the heading of stabilization depending on the mission. Concurrently, stabilization missions have seen the use of language such as 'robust posture' and 'active patrolling', increased logistical capabilities from Western military hardware, the encroachment of a counter-terrorism rhetoric, operations alongside host state forces, and an emphasis on (re)establishing the rule of law. This article examines the legal effects these trends could have. Due to the competing interests introduced by stabilization it is suggested that the mandates issued by the UN Security Council require further clarity and harmonisation to prevent the pursuit of lasting peace from being undermined.

This article looks narrowly at whether a 'human security' approach can be seen in a UN peace operation that pursues stabilization, namely the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). The UN's interpretation of stabilization has not been expressly set out, but stabilization missions typically work alongside the host state to extend state authority and use robust force to counter spoilers. Human security is a concept which is rights-based, promotes the 'vital core', has a concern for vulnerability, utilises preventative protection methods, and empowers local persons to have agency in the peace process. Attempts have been made to institutionalise and mainstream human security practices within the UN. An analytical framework of human security is outlined in this article and used to assess to what extent the mandate of MINUSCA pursues human security-based goals. An extensive review of UN documentation looks at the mandate and practice of MINUSCA and it is argued that the mission does seek to empower local people, engage in a bottom-up manner and entrench the rule of law. The analytical framework also casts light on aspects of the stabilization mandate which are problematic such as militarisation and cooperation with the host state.

No abstract

International law is being challenged by a multitude of new actors and networks that do not fit within the traditional Westphalian system. Similarly, security is increasingly undermined by, for example, economic, health, and environmental threats that can affect individuals' daily lives and know no state boundaries. This is the kaleidoscopic world as outlined by Edith Brown Weiss. The concept of 'human security' has been advanced to inform decision-making on threats to security in the interest of individuals in a bottom-up manner. This article looks forward to methods that can counter what could be perceived as a legitimacy crisis in international law. First, some of the current challenges which international law faces are explained ranging from globalisation, the declining state-based order, and decentralised security threats. Second, the concept of human security is defined, and its contents expounded. Lastly, the thesis is advanced that a conceptual framework of human security can reorientate international law to be responsive to the kaleidoscopic world by using UN peace operations as an example of where human security could have a profound impact. Keywords United Nations Á Human security Á Humanization Á Globalization Á International organizations Á UN peacekeeping Lecturer in Law, Royal Holloway, University of London. I am grateful to the Curatorium of The Hague Academy of International Law, and Baroness Rosalyn Higgins GBE QC, for the award of a scholarship to attend the 2017 Summer Courses where I was able to follow Professor Edith Brown Weiss' General Course on the Kaleidoscopic World. Thanks also go to Dr. Chijioke Chijioke-Oforji for his helpful comments on an earlier draft. All websites were last accessed 2 March 2020. Errors are my own.

This Policy Insight suggests the UN must account for a diverse range of conflict drivers, including health insecurity, and that UN peace operations can play a role in countries of deployment to counter health crises. Insecurity is experienced in a variety of different ways in a complex world where threats are multifaceted. COVID‐19 is merely the latest health crisis which has impacted populations around the globe in both developed and developing countries. However, UN peace operations have not typically played a major role in addressing health insecurity nor have they undergone any major shifts in their focus to provide direct health‐related assistance during the COVID‐19 pandemic. With health insecurity likely to persist, there should not need to be a global pandemic for the UN Security Council to use peace operations to undertake further preventative work in this area.