Introduction: Addressing the Emerging Gap between Concepts, Doctrine and Practice in UN Peacekeeping Operations
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.
PISM Policy Paper nr 4 (157): Squaring the Circle: Is a Balanced Deterrence and Dialogue Approach toward Russia Workable?
Dialogue between Russia and NATO is indispensable to limit the risk of unintended military confrontation amid increased tension. Without dialogue, Alliance cohesion is also at stake. To develop a balance between deterrence and dialogue, it is necessary to understand how the two actions relate to each other, what lessons the West can learn from the past, and what goals it wants to achieve apart from limiting the risk of confrontation.
Hvem utgjør en terrorist?
Etter 11. september har stadig flere ikke-statlige grupper fått merkelappen terrorister. I Myanmar ser vi hvor mye vold det begrepet kan legitimere.
Russlands nye maktposisjon
Russland forsøker å markere seg i Midtøsten – også utenfor Syria. Kong Salmans første besøk til Moskva bekrefter hvor vellykket den russiske strategien er.
Renewable Energy and Geopolitics
Dette prosjektet undersøker de geopolitiske konsekvensene av den omfattende overgangen til fornybar energi, både med tanke på utfasing av gamle energikilder og geopoligiske mønstre og ...
Adaptation for autonomy? Candidates for EU membership and the CFSP
This paper looks at the specific situation of those European states currently candidates for accession to the European Union. These countries are expected to align their domestic laws and policies with the EU “acquis” to fulfil the admission criteria. Foreign policy is no exception. Indeed, the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy has become an increasingly significant part of the accession conditionality since the countries from south-east Europe embarked on the membership course. Arguably, the obligation to adapt to EU norms in the area of CFSP is stronger for candidates than for existing members of the EU. As a result, candidates might eventually enjoy more foreign policy autonomy once inside the EU than they did before accession. There is a risk that this discrepancy between the requirements of pre-accession adaptation and the relative post-accession autonomy may have a negative impact on integration in the field of foreign policy.