United Nations peacekeeping constitutes the second largest military deployment around the world, and the organization's flagship enterprise. Once responsible simply for the job of observing frontiers and monitoring ceasefire agreements, UN missions are now frequently charged with the far more daunting task of 'robust' intervention- penalizing spoilers of peace and protecting civilians from peril. Taking Sides in Peacekeeping explores this transformationand its implications through the first comprehensive conceptual and empirical study of impartiality, a norm long considered to be the bedrock of UN peacekeeping. It reveals how a change in the dominantunderstanding of impartiality has politicized peacekeeping and, in some cases, effectively converted UN forces into one warring party among many. The book incorporates a large body of primary evidence and draws on extensive fieldwork in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, site of the biggest and costliest mission in UN history (1999-2015).

Dennis C. Jett examines why peacekeeping operations fail by comparing the unsuccessful attempt at peacekeeping in Angola with the successful effort in Mozambique, alongside a wide range of other peacekeeping experiences. The book argues that while the causes of past peacekeeping failures can be identified, the chances for success will be difficult to improve because of the way such operations are initiated and conducted, and the way the United Nations operates as an organization. Jett reviews the history of peacekeeping and the evolution in the number, size, scope, and cost of peacekeeping missions. He also explains why peacekeeping has become more necessary, possible, and desired and yet, at the same time, more complex, more difficult, and less frequently used. The book takes a hard look at the UN's actions and provides useful information for understanding current conflicts.

This book examines the effect of biased and neutral mediators in civil wars. Based on analysis of both global data and case studies of contemporary peace processes, including India and Norway in Sri Lanka, China in Cambodia, US in Israel/Palestine, and Russia in Georgia, the book makes two main contributions. First, it explores the role of biased mediators in contemporary peace processes. The author develops a theory explaining why biased mediators are more effective than their neutral counterparts and the book identifies four different mechanisms through which biased mediators can be effective peace-brokers. By developing a comprehensive set of mechanisms to explain bias mediation, the work deepens understanding of biased mediators in general, and their role in resolving civil conflict in particular. The second contribution offered is a novel way of measuring mediation success. Previous research has concentrated on settlement, behavior, or implementation. While these conceptualisations of mediation success all have merit, they fail to address how the basic incompatible positions are regulated. This book focuses on mediators’ ability to regulate core compatibilities by crafting institutional peace arrangements that generally are considered to enhance the prospect for durable peace. This approach has wider implications for peace and conflict research by bringing together research on durability of peace and studies on international mediation, two fields of research which hitherto have been kept apart. This book will be of much interest to students of international mediation, conflict management, civil wars, security studies and IR in general.

"A UN policeman in Haiti gets caught up in a web of corruption"--

The deployment of a large number of soldiers, police officers and civilian personnel inevitably has various effects on the host society and economy, not all of which are in keeping with the peacekeeping mandate and intent or are easily discernible prior to the intervention. This book is one of the first attempts to improve our understanding of unintended consequences of peacekeeping operations, by bringing together field experiences and academic analysis. The aim of the book is not to discredit peace operations but rather to improve the way in which such operations are planned and managed.

One of the most vexing issues that has faced the international community since the end of the Cold War has been the use of force by the United Nations peacekeeping forces. UN intervention in civil wars, as in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Rwanda, has thrown into stark relief the difficulty of peacekeepers operating in situations where consent to their presence and activities is fragile or incomplete and where there is little peace to keep. Complex questions arise in these circumstances. When and how should peacekeepers use force to protect themselves, to protect their mission, or, most troublingly, to ensure compliance by recalcitrant parties with peace accords? Is a peace enforcement role for peacekeepers possible or is this simply war by another name? Is there a grey zone between peacekeeping and peace enforcement? Trevor Findlay reveals the history of the use of force by UN peacekeepers from Sinai in the 1950s to Haiti in the 1990s. He untangles the arguments about the use of force in peace operations and sets these within the broader context of military doctrine and practice. Drawing on these insights the author examines proposals for future conduct of UN operations, including the formulation of UN peacekeeping doctrine and the establishment of a UN rapid reaction force.

This book is a critical political and institutional reflection on UN peace operations. It provides constructive suggestions as to how the UN and the international system can evolve to remain relevant and tackle the peace and security challenges of the 21st century, without abandoning the principles that the UN was founded upon and on which the legitimacy of UN peace operations rests. The author analyses the evolving politics on UN peace operations of the five veto powers of the UN Security Council, as well as major troop-contributing countries and western powers. He investigates the move towards peace enforcement and counter-terrorism, and what consequences this development may have for the UN. Karlsrud issues a challenge to practitioners and politicians to make sure that the calls for reform are anchored in a desire to improve the lives of people suffering in conflicts on the ground—and not spurred by intra-organizational turf battles or solely the narrow self-interests of member states. Finally, he asks how the UN can adapt its practices to become more field- and people-centered, in line with its core, primary commitments of protecting and serving people in need.