Suchergebnisse

The assumption that peacekeeping requires soldiers carrying weapons is widespread; 35 years of successful peacekeeping by unarmed civilians is often overlooked. The original definition of peacekeeping is being confused with peace enforcement and peace operations. Limited interest has led to underfunding of unarmed civilian peacekeeping (UCP) with fewer resources for both study and praxis. Marginalization of civilian peacekeeping has restricted the options for complex interventions; this reduced vision of peacekeeping is open to challenge in the light of evidence from the field. This paper first examines what is meant by peacekeeping and UCP. The relationship of UCP to nonviolence, feminism, and peace studies is considered. The constraints and limits of peacekeeping by armed military personnel during, or after, violent conflict are outlined. The core tasks of peacekeeping are analysed, and evidence from the field is presented to show that these core tasks can be (and have been) successfully undertaken by unarmed civilians for three decades, world-wide. The argument that armed military personnel are necessary, even essential, for peacekeeping is not supported by the evidence of civilian success in undertaking the core tasks. The paper ends with conclusions and a call for a new paradigm for peacekeeping.

The Anti-Personnel Landmine Regulation mandates an overall assessment of all EC mine action every three years. This report contains the first such assessment for the period 2002-2004. The total funding by all EC budget lines for 2002-2004 for mine action was about 116M, of which the horizontal mine action budget line was nearly 40% at 45M. The total for the same period for all EU mine action, including contributions by Member States, was about 410M, of which the dedicated budget line is just 11%. The overall assessment reviewed four areas: 1) how the APL Regulation was used to generate mine action strategy, 2) how the strategy was used to implement the multi-annual programme, 3) how projects were selected and contracted in order to achieve the programme objectives and 4) the evaluation and assessment processes used. It then provides a summary of the key findings and puts forward a series of recommendations. Data was collected from documents, databases and internet searches, interviews with staff in Brussels, telephone interviews with key organisation staff, questionnaires to delegations and project implementers, and three field missions (Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia).