House of cards? India's rationales for contributing to UN peacekeeping

Hansel, Mischa; Möller, M.

doi:10.1080/14781158.2014.908836

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…India's UN officials and political and diplomatic elites have consistently invoked their country's superlative track record compared with other UN member states. Moreover, since the early 1990s, India has made frequent reference to its contributions to peacekeeping in support of its claim to a permanent seat on the Security Council (Krishnasmay & Weigold, 2003;Hansel & Möller, 2014). During India's stint as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council from 2011-2013, Indian representatives focused on peacekeeping as a core agenda and made proposals to improve its effectiveness (Mukherjee, 2015).…”

Section: China India and Peacekeeping Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, the Modi government committed to increasing India's troop contributions in 2017 (Hindustan Times, 2018). India's commitment persists, some argue, because the provision of troops bolsters India's international status directly (Krishnasamy and Weigold 2003), and because, as mentioned, the historical size and quality of India's troop contributions enhance India's likelihood of attaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council (Hansel & Möller, 2014). China's increasing contributions to UN peacekeeping, outlined below, have likely raised the value of India's own contributions, although at least one observer asserts that India 'resents the disproportionate attention Chinese contributions receive' (Vira, 2012).…”

Section: China India and Peacekeeping Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

China’s and India’s search for international status through the UN system: competition and complementarity

Estrada

Foot

2019

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As rising powers, China and India both perceive the United Nations as a primary venue for status seeking, and both express pride in narrating the ways in which they have supported the UN Charter and the maintenance of international peace and security. Given the competitive dynamic between these two countries, we might expect this competition to extend to their activities in global governance. In this article we develop and apply the concepts of 'status domain' and 'status good characteristics' to examine the extent to which Sino-Indian status competition is exacerbated or mitigated in three status-bearing areas: UN peacekeeping operations, Security Council membership, and Security Council behaviour. We find that status competition between the two countries, at least within the UN, is not always the dominant outcome. International organizations that allow for separate status domains, and also for the expression of a shared global vision, can mitigate status competition between states.

show abstract

Section: China India and Peacekeeping Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: China India and Peacekeeping Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s and India’s search for international status through the UN system: competition and complementarity

Estrada

Foot

2019

Contemporary Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The trade between India and Africa has jumped almost five times from US $ 11.7 billion in 2005-06 to US $ 56.9 billion by 2015-16, and although we expect the India-Africa bilateral trade to exceed US $ 100 billion in next few years (Bureau 2017), this improvement in economic ties does not seem worth it as compared to the burden on India due to the peace operations. For example, in 2011, India had 17 helicopters in UN peacekeeping service in DRC and the Sudan, while it had a shortage in combating its own Maoist insurgency (Hansel and Miriam 2014). Deputy Ambassador to the UN Manjeev Puri bluntly stated that 'India cannot be the only place in the world with attack helicopters, We have capacity restraints' (Hansel and Miriam 2014).…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of India's Views On Peacekeepingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in 2011, India had 17 helicopters in UN peacekeeping service in DRC and the Sudan, while it had a shortage in combating its own Maoist insurgency (Hansel and Miriam 2014). Deputy Ambassador to the UN Manjeev Puri bluntly stated that 'India cannot be the only place in the world with attack helicopters, We have capacity restraints' (Hansel and Miriam 2014).…”

Section: Critical Analysis Of India's Views On Peacekeepingmentioning

confidence: 99%

UN Peacekeeping Challenges, Solutions and South Asia’s Stance

Nagar

2016

South Asian Survey

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term peacekeeping is not included in the United Nations (UN) charter. The UN defines peacekeeping as ‘an operation involving military personnel, but without enforcement powers, established by the United Nations to help maintain or restore international peace and security in areas of conflict’ (White 1997). During the Cold War period, peacekeeping was mainly confined to Middle East, parts of Africa and other regional conflicts, which were mainly associated with de-colonisation. The major limitations are created when the states decline to offer forces for the peacekeeping operations, as is evident in the case of recent peacekeeping operations in Africa. The UN peacekeeping underwent a great expansion along with new mandates in the early part of 1990s. This resulted in a huge increase in the requirement of peacekeepers along with a rising budget and this led to a huge gap in terms of commitment and capability needed and what was provided. Greater number of resources including peacekeeping troops were required than what was actually made available. The two most egregious failures occurred in Srebrenica, Bosnia–Herzegovina, and in Rwanda. These failures have resulted in UN taking up several new measures in order to improve the peacekeeping operations. This article tries to highlight the impending governance issues of UN along with the adopted solutions to solve the issues. It also tries to highlight South Asia’s and India’s stance with respect to the UN peacekeeping operations and tries to argue that South Asian Nations should rethink its policy with respect to UN peacekeeping and adopt a smarter and more strategic approach towards its future engagement.

show abstract

Like Fish in a Stream? Considering the Agency of the UN Peacekeepers of the Global South: Rwanda and India as Case Studies

Roberts

2018

Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

House of cards? India's rationales for contributing to UN peacekeeping

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

China’s and India’s search for international status through the UN system: competition and complementarity

China’s and India’s search for international status through the UN system: competition and complementarity

UN Peacekeeping Challenges, Solutions and South Asia’s Stance

Like Fish in a Stream? Considering the Agency of the UN Peacekeepers of the Global South: Rwanda and India as Case Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About