Suchergebnisse

United Nations (UN) peacekeeping is carried out by a complex bureaucratic organisation – the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy. This organisation is necessary for the work of UN peacekeeping operations. It is also a dynamic social entity, which produces its own processes, rules and procedures capable of making sense of the complex post-war recovery issue. This thesis explores how organisational processes within the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy work. It does so by cumulating three independent articles under this general research question. The first article develops a theoretical framework of analysis through introducing two core concepts of organisational sociology, 'coupling' and 'communication', to the study of UN peacekeeping. It argues that the interconnection between these two concepts define a dynamic organisational space in which UN officials interact and shape peacekeeping activities. The second and third articles present the results of a qualitative case study: the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and its headquarters, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). Through the use of interpretative methods, the second article particularly identifies general strategies used by UN officials to organise and influence peacekeeping activities within UNMIL and DPKO. The third article investigates the disconnection between the organisational perspective of UNMIL and that of DPKO, and analyses the use of communication practices in protection against intra-organisational interferences. The results of these articles reveal that the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy is more than a rationalised organisation functioning to fulfil a specific goal or mandate. Rather, its organisational processes rely on the creativity and flexibility of its individual member as well as their ability to make their work influential within the organisation. This thesis also shows that the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy includes a high degree of organisational diversity, as it incorporates multiple perspectives and autonomous local frameworks in which UN ...

Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a criticalconstructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states' military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.

Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states' military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.

With the establishment of the United Nations, the international community gives some responsibilities to an organization and one of them is the peacekeeping operations. Although the UN Charter does not mention the concept of peacekeeping, the Security Council is the responsible to do peacekeeping operations. If there is no SC resolution, the peacekeeping operations are accepted as illegal by scholars. Although the UN has many different organs such as the General Assembly, The Secretary-General and Department of Peacekeeping Operations, these organs do not have an influential role in peacekeeping operations. The General Assembly only recommends any policy, and also the Charter gives only financial responsibility of the Assembly. The main aim of this article lightens the details of peacekeeping operations and identifies the roles of the UN Organs.

Examines some of the financial and other problems that have arisen since the scope of peacekeeping missions was enlarged in the late 1980s to include humanitarian interventions, with acceptance of the idea that force or the threat of force might be used to ensure delivery of assistance. Problems related to financing, administration, definition of mission, command structure, and lack of an early warning system.

The author, presently the President of the International Peace Academy in New York and who played a key role in the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations in the Congo (now Zaire), discusses several peacekeeping operations of the UNO in which India participated: UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force) at the Straits of Tiran and Gaza Strip, UNOGIL in Lebanon and ONUC in Congo. Central role of India's Permanent Mission at the United Nations during the period Indian armed forces played a key part in UN peacekeeping operations. (DÜI-Sen)

The UN & peacekeeping do not automatically go together in any vision of the future. Until less than a decade ago the UN was the only real peacekeeping body in the world. It had been that way since Ralph Bunche dreamed it up as acting UN mediator on Palestine in 1948. Now, everyone does peacekeeping. But how should we do it in a world of weak states where regional concerns often dominate? Adapted from the source document.