UN Peace Operations: Adapting to a New Global Order?

Abstract

In early March 2015, the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General's High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO) made a stop in Cairo, Egypt as part of its regional consultations on reform of UN peace operations. One of the discussion questions for the first session asked, whether current UN peace operations in the Middle East are the right fit for today's security environment and, if not, what kind of UN presence makes the most sense now and in the future. Very soon into the session a young diplomat from one of the regional states challenged the premise of this question, arguing that the only role for the UN is in supporting regional approaches. His passionate intervention opened a floodgate, with speaker after speaker depicting the UN with deep suspicion. The message was clear: UN peace operations were seen to be a Western intervention into regional matters; the League of Arab States (LAS) should deal with Arab problems, same as the African Union

The End of the Liberal World Order and the Future of UN Peace Operations: Lessons Learned

“…Scholars and policy makers agree that regional organizations are an important platform for action in light of the transnational quality of contemporary conflict as the liberal world order loses its universal appeal (Duffield, 2001; Peter, 2019). Regional approaches to peace acknowledge the dynamic (and often transnational) networks that characterize conflicts, and seek an intermediary actor that bridges the global and the national to more effectively respond to conflict (Flockhart, 2016; Tschirgi, 2002; World Bank, 2011).…”

“…The Multinational Force of the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (FOMUC) faced similar constraints during their operation in the Central African Republic (CAR), including a lack of resources, training and a long‐term mandate (Boutellis, 2013). The regional quality of conflicts legitimizes the need for regional responses, as do the policy demands for more contextually‐situated and locally‐owned approaches to security and development (Peter, 2019; IDPS, 2011; OECD DAC, 2007, 2008, 2015). While conceptually promising, the resource constraints and the challenges of aligning and coordinating mandates between regional and international actors perpetuates instability.…”

“…This change of order at the Cold War’s end had significant implications for understanding international conflicts, with prevalence shifting from inter‐ to intrastate wars (Kaldor, 1999), 1. In this new order non‐state actors helped to transnationalize conflicts (Peter, 2019; Tschirgi, 2002), producing a whole new set of challenges for the UN and its peacekeeping institution (Koops et al. 2017), long seen as a symbol of liberal international cooperation.…”

“…There is widespread understanding among scholars that the current world order is changing and becoming more diverse (de Coning et al., 2014; Peter, 2019). From this starting point, we examine what such change in order would mean for the future of UN peace interventions.…”

Posfácio - 70 anos das operações de paz das Nações Unidas: balanços e perspectivas

“…2019 O objetivo deste dossiê foi reunir contribuições acadêmicas que suscitem reflexões acerca da evolução das operações de paz nos últimos 70 anos, desde a autorização da primeira operação de paz das Nações Unidas, em 1948. Tendo em vista o contexto de renascimento das operações de manutenção da paz (OMP), a partir do início dos anos 2000 (BELLAMY; WILLIANS, 2010), e o momento atual de revisão de diretrizes, princípios e práticas que norteiam essas operações (PETER, 2019), buscou-se oportunizar a discussão acerca do papel da ONU como promotora da paz através de suas iniciativas de peacekeeping.…”