Peace operations are what states make of them: Why future evolution is more likely than extinction

Abstract

Peace operations are a highly resilient international institution for managing armed conflict. Their resilience derives from what constructivists in International Relations theory call collective intentionality and the malleable constitutive rules that define and structure such missions. Despite a range of current constraints, challenges, and crises, peace operations are unlikely to become extinct unless a critical mass of states consistently withdraw material support for them and explicitly denigrate the concept of peace operations itself. We see little evidence that both these things are likely to occur. However, the constitutive rules guiding peace operations are likely to continue to evolve due to ideational and material changes. While the proliferation of actors and mission types makes precise predictions impossible, we expect an evolution both in how various actors define their own peace operations and how these actors relate to each other. KEYWORDS Peacekeeping; peace operations; United Nations; constructivism Peace operations involve the expeditionary use of military personnel to: help prevent armed conflict by supporting a peace process; observe or assist in the implementation of ceasefires or peace agreements; and/or enforce ceasefires, peace agreements or the will of the United Nations (UN) Security Council in order to build stable peace (Williams & Bellamy, 2021, p. 1). Since the late 1940s, peace operations have been authorized by various international organizations-most frequently the UN-and states, usually in response to war or the threat of war. They have been deployed right across the conflict cycle, including in the midst of active armed conflicts, after ceasefires, following peace agreements, and, rarely, before the outbreak of war. Peacekeepers have been variously mandated to prevent war, observe ceasefires and demilitarized zones, assist in implementing peace agreements, protect civilians, as well as stabilize and even administer war-torn territories. Occasionally, they

The future of UN peace operations: Principled adaptation through phases of contraction, moderation, and renewal

“…I will argue that throughout the forthcoming short-term contraction, medium-term moderation, and longer-term renewal phases, UN peacekeeping is likely to be guided by a principled adaptive approach, that will enable it to adapt and transform to the realities of the moment whilst remaining resilient and staying true to its core form and identity. As a result, UN peacekeeping is likely to maintain, throughout this period of transition, its core role, function, and identity as one of the most established and visible symbols of global governance and international cooperation (Coleman & Williams, 2021).…”

Conflict management or conflict resolution: how do major powers conceive the role of the United Nations in peacebuilding?

“…The empirical evidence provided here could be used by scholars to understand if peace missions are really “what states make of them” (Coleman & Williams, 2021 ) and whether the UN has adjusted to global power shifts (Kruck & Zangl, 2020 ). In other words, do the current trends in the UN’s role in peacebuilding conform to the different conceptions that major powers have?…”

“…Looking at today’s world politics, scholars and practitioners have started to discuss the future of UN peace operations in the nascent multipolar world order (Cassin & Zyla, 2021 ; Coleman & Williams, 2021 ; de Coning, 2021 ; de Coning & Peter, 2019 ; Kenkel & Foley, 2021 ; Osland & Peter, 2021 ). Multipolarity is characterized by more diffused power structures.…”

Responding to the crisis in United Nations peace operations

“…Together with the increasing origin of mission troops in neighboring states, Kenkel argues that once liberal peacebuilding loses space to stabilization in UN peace operations, rather than salutary beacons of civilian control, these missions risk becoming incubators for militaries' resistance to democratic oversight. Coleman and Williams (2021) close the special forum with it broadest overview and a view of the future. Adopting a constructivist approach, they settle on two key factors as crucial determinants of the future evolution of peace operations: collective intentionality and flexible constitutive rules.…”