Researcher
Cedric H. de Coning
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Cedric de Coning is a Research Professor in the Research group on peace, conflict and development at NUPI.
He co-directs the NUPI Center on United Nations and Global Governance, and the Climate, Peace and Security Risk project. He coordinates the Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network (EPON) and contributes to the Training for Peace programme, the UN Peace Operations project (UNPO) and several others. He is also a senior advisor for ACCORD. He tweets at @CedricdeConing.
Cedric has 30 years of experience in research, policy advise, training and education in the areas of conflict resolution, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace and conflict studies. Cedric has a Ph.D. in Applied Ethics from the Department of Philosophy of the University of Stellenbosch, and a M.A. (cum laude) in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Expertise
Education
2012 PhD, Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Stellenbosch
2005 M.A., Conflict Management and Peace Studies, University of KwaZula-Natal
Work Experience
2020- Research Professor, NUPI
2012-2020 Senior Researcher, NUPI
2006-2012 Researcher, NUPI
2002- Senior Advisor (Consultant), ACCORD
2002 Training Officer, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
2001-2002 Political Affairs Officer, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG), UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
2001 Civil Affairs Officer, Office of District Affairs, UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
2000 Assistant Director: Programmes, ACCORD
1999-2000 Civil Affairs Officer, Bobonaro District UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET)
1997-1999 Programme Manager: Peacekeeping, ACCORD
1988-1997 Assistant Director, Department of Foreign Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filtersThe Role of the Civilian Component in African Union Peace Operations
The role of civilians in African Union (AU) peace support operations (PSOs) is still not fully understood. As a result, civilian capacity development has not been well resourced in comparison with the military and police dimensions of the African Standby Force (ASF) and has only modestly developed since 2006. As at the end of 2016 the AU has deployed approximately 400 civilians across its PSOs in Burundi, the Central African Republic (CAR), Mali, Somalia and Sudan. The average size of the actual civilian component in each mission totalled approximately fifty people. The civilian components most commonly found in AU PSOs are Political Affairs, Human Rights and Protection, Public Information, Humanitarian Liaison, Safety and Security, Civil Affairs, Gender and Mission Support. Despite AU policies and PSO doctrine, the value of a multidimensional approach to PSOs, and the role that civilians perform in this larger context, is not widely recognised in the AU Commission, AU PSOs or among the AU’s key PSO partners. The AU has struggled to articulate clearly why it needs a multidimensional approach, what the function and contribution of the civilian components are, and how the civilians staff contribute to achieving the mandate of a particular mission. This will have to change if the AU is serious about undertaking comprehensive stabilisation operations.
Support to UN Peace Operations: Ensuring More Effective UN Peace Operations (UNPO)
The aim of the project is to strengthen the ability of UN peacekeeping and other peace operations to respond to global security challenges, adapt to a changing global order, and continue contributing ...
The UN we need?
Is UN Peace Operations adapting fast enough to remain relevant in today’s rapidly changing global landscape?
New book: Rising Powers may fundamentally change peacebuilding
What exactly is new and innovative about the peacebuilding approach of the rising powers from the Global South?
Introduction: Why Examine Rising Powers and Peacebuilding?
Over the last decade several setbacks in places like Burundi, Libya, South Sudan and Yemen, to name a few, have significantly eroded the prominence that peacebuilding enjoyed in the international system. The failure of peacebuilding to deliver sustained peace has combined with a push from rising powers against Western dominance, to produce a turn to the Global South as a source for more legitimate and effective responses to mass organized violence in the world. Onto this stage new actors like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and several other prominent regional powers in the Global South, like Indonesia and Turkey, have emerged as new ‘donors’ that advance their own political and technical approaches to peacebuilding. The entry of the rising powers into the peacebuilding field are likely to have significant implications for how the UN and other international and regional organisations, as well as both the traditional donors and the recipient countries view peacebuilding in the future. Their entry may fundamentally alter how we understand and undertake peacebuilding a decade or more from now. With this book, we seek to answer the following central question: What exactly is new and innovative about the peacebuilding approach of the rising powers from the Global South, and what are the implications of these new approaches for peacebuilding? In this introductory chapter, we explain why this question is important, and how we have gone about answering it in the book. The introduction thus give the reader an overview of the context, key research questions and the structure of the book.
Conclusion: Are Rising Powers Breaking the Peacebuilding Mold?
In this concluding chapter we analyze the peacebuilding concepts, policies and practices of the group of rising powers - Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey – that we have chosen to focus on in this book. We find that these countries share a number of approaches, but note that they also diverge in several areas. The rising powers have a broader concept of peacebuilding than most Western donor countries, but the extent to which they equate peacebuilding with development varies. They have a more holistic operational approach, they have a longer time horizon and a strong emphasis on national ownership, but the latter is often narrowed down to governmental consent. They share a heightened sensitivity to sovereignty, but negotiate this in a variety of different ways. It is also possible that rising powers will adopt more results-based and shorter-term approaches. We find that the rising powers have influenced the discourse and practices of peacebuilding, especially at the United Nations, but have not transformed them. Several recent setbacks raise doubts about whether rising powers will sustain their new influential role in peacebuilding. Our research show that rising powers have set forth a broadly coherent set of principles and rationales as the basis for their new approach to peacebuilding. These principles and practices, and especially their results, are likely to influence how Western donors, the UN, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations approach peacebuilding in important ways in the coming years.
Rising Powers and Peacebuilding: Breaking the Mold
This book is open access under a CC BY 4.0 license. This edited volume examines the policies and practices of rising powers on peacebuilding. It analyzes how and why their approaches differ from those of traditional donors and multilateral institutions. The policies of the rising powers towards peacebuilding may significantly influence how the UN and others undertake peacebuilding in the future. This book is an invaluable resource for practitioners, policy makers, researchers and students who want to understand how peacebuilding is likely to evolve over the next decades.
Researching the Effectiveness of Peace Operations, Seminar Report, 31 May – 1 June, Oslo
The African Union (AU), European Union (EU), and United Nations (UN) are under increasing pressure to justify the effectiveness of the peace operations they deploy. Justifying this effectiveness requires precise assessments based on systematized and evidence-based data. Per now, however, this data is lacking, a gap the global research community could help address. On 31 May and 1 June 2017, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) hosted a seminar that brought together thirty participants from the AU, UN, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as research institutes and think tanks from across the globe. The aim of the seminar was to share insights on how best to research the effectiveness of peace operations and to explore the establishment of a network that could seek to address this gap. The seminar discussed how to research and measure the effectiveness of peace operations. It looked at current definitions and conceptualizations of effectiveness, and it discussed the varying perceptions stakeholders have of the effectiveness of peace operations. The group also explored the options for establishing a network dedicated to research on the effectiveness of peace operations. The seminar agreed on the value of establishing such a network, with an aim to produce knowledge that is both academically valuable and relevant for policymakers. Hence, it considered different organizational modalities for a potential research network, with regards to governing principles, funding, and how researchers could undertake joint research projects. This report summarizes the key conclusions and recommendations from the seminar, and lists what the next steps may be for the establishment of a research network on the effectiveness of peace operations.
Peace Enforcement in Africa: Doctrinal distinctions between the African Union and United Nations
When the United Nations (UN) Security Council needs to authorize a peace enforcement operation in Africa, its partner of choice is the African Union (AU). Africa has developed significant peace operations capacity over the past decade. In addition to deploying eight AU operations, Africa now contributes 50% of all UN peacekeepers. African stability operations, like its mission in Somalia, are often described as peace enforcement operations. In this article, the author questions whether it is accurate to categorize African stability operations as peace enforcement? This article answers the question by considering what the criteria are that are used to differentiate between peace enforcement and peacekeeping operations in the UN context. The author then uses the peace enforcement criteria to assess whether AU stabilization operations would qualify as peace enforcement operations. In conclusion, he considers the implications of the findings for the strategic partnership between the AU and the UN.
The Large Contributors and UN Peacekeeping Doctrine
This edited volume offers a thorough review of peacekeeping theory and reality in contemporary contexts, and aligns the two to help inform practice. Recent UN peacekeeping operations have challenged the traditional peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality and the minimum use of force. The pace and scope of these changes have now reached a tipping point, as the new mandates are fundamentally challenging the continued validity of the UN peacekeeping’s core principles and identity. In response the volume analyses the growing gap between these actual practices and existing UN peacekeeping doctrine, exploring how it undermines the effectiveness of UN operations, and endangers lives, arguing that a common doctrine is a critical starting point for effective multi-national operations. In order to determine the degree to which this general principle applies to the current state of UN peacekeeping, this book: - Provides a review of conceptual and doctrinal developments in UN peacekeeping operations through a historical perspective - Examines the debate related to peace operations doctrine and concepts among key Member States - Focuses on the actual practice of peacekeeping by conducting case studies of several UN peacekeeping missions in order to identify gaps between practice and doctrine - Critically analyses gaps between emerging peacekeeping practice and existing doctrine - Recommends that the UN moves beyond the peacekeeping principles and doctrine of the past Combining empirical case-based studies on UN peace operations, with studies on the views and policies of key UN Security Council members that generate these mandates, and views of key contributors of UN peacekeepers, this volume will be of great use to policy-makers; UN officials and peace operations practitioners; and academics working on peace and conflict/security studies, international organizations and conflict management.