Collective instruments, such as UN peacekeeping or mediation, are a lens through which we can examine broader normative fault lines in the international order. They hold both practical and symbolic value. In the post-Cold War moment, these instruments started reflecting liberal values. They became concerned with balancing the rights of individuals and state sovereignty. These advances around "human protection" are now in question, with contestation perceived as emerging from non-Western powers. I contribute to the debates on the "pragmatic turn" within collective responses but contend that while the focus in current debates about the normative shift has become global fragmentation, the momentum for the de-prioritization of human protection within collective instruments comes from within the liberal order itself. Human protection is now a broadly shared and firmly entrenched norm, but to shield the norm from abuse, the collective international community progressively restricted any use of force to advance the norm within the instrument of UN peacekeeping. The co-optation of UN peacekeeping into counter-terrorism efforts and the introduction of stabilization mandates undermined the principled nature and moral authority of the instrument of peacekeeping itself. This, in turn, compromised the implementation of human protection. This development is now accelerated and exposed due to global fragmentation, influencing not just peacekeeping but also other adjacent activities, such as mediation.
Coherence is of continuing significance for the European Union's external activities, particularly when it comes to countries and regions embroiled in or emerging from conflict. Here, the EU's shorter-term concerns about instabilities and security need to be reconciled with plans and commitments for longer-term engagements. The question of coherence is especially relevant when it comes to the European External Action Service (EEAS). The mid-2013 review of the EEAS is intended to evaluate the organisational aspects of this body, but the High Representative and member states should take this opportunity to engage in a more strategic assessment of how the EEAS could contribute to foreign policy coherence. One aspect in need of consideration is the coordination of activities between the European Union Special Representatives (EUSR) and the EEAS. In particular, the viability and challenges of double-hatting in-country EUSRs as Heads of Delegations should be addressed
Abstract China's relationship with human security has been ambiguous. It has acted as the most visible objector of the concept, while simultaneously contributing the most troops of all UN Security Council permanent members to UN protection of civilians (poc) peacekeeping missions. To analyse this ambiguity, we develop a typology of activities used by external actors to address human security concerns: mediation, physical protection including the use of force, and capacity building. The typology draws on the three constituent responsibilities in Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and closely aligns with the three tiers of the UN peacekeeping poc policy. We apply our typology on China's engagement with the South Sudan civil war. We posit two interlinked arguments. First, we argue that China pursues a dual-track approach to human security, within and outside multilateral deployments, and these need to be read simultaneously to appreciate its understanding of the concept. Second, we argue for a refocus on all three types of activities. While most research has focused on the Chinese approach to the use of force, we show that the two other types of activities—mediation and capacity building —present highly productive sites of contestation. Given the current global fragmentation, where any authorisation of the use of force in the unsc and robust peacekeeping deployments are increasingly improbable, understanding Chinese understandings of human security within mediation and capacity building is of paramount importance.
This contribution increases the understanding of the EU's role in post-conflict settings by exploring perceptions of EULEX by local rule of law experts. Drawing on critical peacebuilding and the decline of normative power Europe literatures, we develop an analytical framework, underlining the importance of the intention–implementation gap and the implementation–perception gap in understanding how EU missions are perceived. By comparing local expert narratives to those of EULEX judges, prosecutors, and legal officers, we contend that the core problem for the negative perception of the mission results from what we call the double proximity paradox in peacebuilding. The first paradox is one of implementation and transpires when an actor commits substantial resources to address structural problems in a post-conflict territory due to its centrality for its own interests, but fails to uphold its commitment as its immediate interests can only be achieved through agents who contribute to these problems. The second paradox relates to perception and transpires as high commitments raise expectations of structural impact. The visibility of the actor's investment makes any implementation failures more tangible. The actor is therefore, paradoxically, the most open to criticism in a territory where it is doing the most. ; The double proximity paradox in peacebuilding: implementation and perception of the EU rule of law mission in Kosovo
Peacebuilding - understood as a broad range of activities to solidify peace and avoid the relapse into violent conflict - has become central to the self-conception of the EU as a foreign policy actor. The concept has been making inroads into different EU policy areas such as security and defence, development cooperation, enlargement and the European Neighbourhood Policy. At the same time, the dominant approach to peacebuilding has increasingly come under fire because of its failure to produce durable peace in many countries. The European Union has reacted to these challenges by adapting its concepts, but translation of these into practice - as currently witnessed in the Sahel and the two Sudans - is proving more difficult
"I have seen the UN perform on a changing global stage in many UN missions. This book examines how the UN must continue to evolve amongst changing state actors, differing regional organisations and a constant global paradigm shift. It is essential material for enhancing one's understanding of the nature of international conflict and for the continued relevance of the UN as a key stakeholder and participant in world affairs." —Maj. Gen. Kristin Lund, Head of Mission and Chief of Staff, UN peacekeeping mission in the Middle East (UNTSO) "This outstanding collection is a must-read for anyone interested in the central challenges of peacekeeping today. From big ideas about changes in global order, to more focused analyses of policing and the protection of civilians, this book provides a comprehensive overview of where peacekeeping is now, and what we may expect in the future." —Lise Morjé Howard, Associate Professor, Georgetown University "The book analyses recent developments in UN peacekeeping in the context of the historic changes underway in the global order. I would recommend it to policy makers, peacekeepers and scholars who wish to understand, optimise and improve the effectiveness of modern peacekeeping." —Lt. Gen. Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz, former Force Commander in the UN missions in the DRC (MONUSCO) and Haiti (MINUSTAH) "Peacekeeping has been the most visible UN activity in its primary mandate to maintain international peace and security. In a world in disarray, as security threats mutate and the world order shifts away from US primacy and fresh challenges arise, the UN must respond with nimbleness and flexibility to stay relevant. This exceptional collection of analyses by experts from both the global North and South will be of interest to practitioners and scholars alike – highly recommended." —Ramesh Thakur, Professor, Australian National University "Peacekeeping is not what it was even a decade ago: global power is shifting, new types of conflicts are emerging, and demands on the United Nations and regional organizations are growing. Anyone interested in contemporary conflict resolution and the changing character of international peace operations should read this excellent book." —Roland Paris, Professor of International Affairs, University of Ottawa "This book is an insightful and forward-looking scholarly contribution to debates within the United Nations. It shows how profound the recent changes affecting peace operations are and pushes us all to rethink our assumptions about conflict, peace and the role of international organizations. It could not come at a better moment." —Jean-Marie Guehenno, UN High-level Advisory Board on Mediation, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations This open access book explores how UN peace operations are adapting to four transformational trends in the changing global order: (1) the rebalancing of relations between states of the global North and the global South; (2) the rise of regional organisations as providers of peace; (3) the rise of violent extremism and fundamentalist non-state actors; and (4) increasing demands from non-state actors for greater emphasis on human security. It identifies emerging conflict and peace trends (robustness of responses, rise of non-state threats, cross-state conflicts) and puts them in the context of tectonic shifts in the global order (rise of emerging powers, North–South rebalancing, emergence of regional organisations as providers of peace). The volume stimulates a discussion between practitioners and academics from the global North and South, and offers an analysis of how the international community collectively makes sense of the changing global order and its implications for UN peace operations.
This open access volume explores how UN peace operations are adapting to four trends in the changing global order: (1) the rebalancing of relations between states of the global North and the global South; (2) the rise of regional organisations as providers of peace; (3) the rise of violent extremism and fundamentalist non-state actors; and (4) increasing demands from non-state actors for greater emphasis on human security. It identifies emerging conflict and peace trends (robustness of responses, rise of non-state threats, cross-state conflicts) and puts them in the context of tectonic shifts in the global order (rise of emerging powers, North–South rebalancing, emergence of regional organisations as providers of peace). The volume stimulates a discussion between practitioners and academics, offering an analysis of how the international community collectively makes sense of the changing global order and its implications for UN peace operations.
