Realist scholarship and peacekeeping scholarship are rarely brought together, and this is to the detriment of both fields, suggests this chapter. This chapter shows how IR realism would help to enrich and boost the study of peacekeeping, and, conversely, how the study of peacekeeping may provide fertile new ground for realist investigations of world politics. The chapter reiterates the fact that peacekeeping concerns some of the most fundamental questions of political science such as peace, war, and order, and that realism may help significantly to broaden the scope of peacekeeping studies to macro-political questions. The chapter discusses different varieties of realism, and suggests that, if there is to be a new distribution of power within the international system, then realism may offer particularly timely insights to study the future development of peacekeeping operations in a multipolar world.

In documents and statements, some Arab and Israeli leaders and analysts tout the effectiveness of using force for advancing their basic goals like national security and independence. In 2008–2009, the battle between Israel and Hamas contained multiple examples of this perspective. There are also other historical cases where this idea is a plausible explanation: the 1967 Arab–Israeli war and how it shifted Egyptian and Syrian policy toward Israel; Israel’s strength in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a factor undermining the Palestinian national movement’s military approach; the first intifada, which pushed Israel toward a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian question; and two Israeli unilateral territorial withdrawals that emboldened the ‘force works’ narrative, from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005.

The flipside of thinking military force is the best policy tool available to achieve national aims has often been the notion that negotiations and concessions are an inferior means, one that signals weakness and leads to being taken advantage of by one’s rival. In addition, structures of violence and coercion exert themselves, thereby undermining or leading to the premature closure of negotiating opportunities. In short, ideas and institutions combine to undermine diplomatic pathways. If a government or organization really have wanted to try to change the direction of Arab–Israeli or Israeli–Palestinian relations by de-emphasizing the reliance on military force, violence, and coercion, there were numerous moments that could have been creatively built upon to effect change. Case studies of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ten-point programme in 1974, the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, and Israel’s disengagement in 2005 illustrate missed opportunities and some of the muddled signals that go along with those moments.

Exploring the intersection of legal science and science fiction is hardly a novelty. Many publications have used beloved genre classics as a gateway to discuss topics as varied as cloning, climate change and criminal justice. In contrast to their colleagues at international relations departments, international lawyers seem less inclined to boldly go in this direction. This is unfortunate, as major themes can fruitfully be debated through sci-fi movies and television series, such as ‘intergalactic’ legal orders, the law of treaties, environmental law and so on. In an effort to fill this gap, the present chapter will delve into this world of speculative fiction and in so doing presents the following central thesis: future worlds portrayed in science fiction reproduce the tensions underlying contemporary theoretical approaches to the international legal order. This includes illustrations of constitutionalism, idealism and realism. The basic tenets of each doctrine will be outlined, after which movies and television series will be dissected that best convey the approach in question. In the final part, the chapter will seek to explain why contemporary approaches have come to be reproduced in science fiction and highlight some factors influencing the choice of certain theoretical approaches over others.

This chapter analyses the cinematic representations of the principle of distinction, one of the cornerstones of the law of armed conflict. In general, the view presented in these films and TV series is that it is extremely difficult or even impossible to effectively apply the principle of distinction in the field. Law is depicted as being ill adapted to properly regulate armed conflicts, too burdensome and out of touch with the dictates of the realities on the ground. In most cases, legal norms are submitted to the viewers’ scrutiny, either implicitly, or explicitly. Cinematic productions convey a specific stance as to the relevance, usefulness and applicability of the law of armed conflict. Sometimes, the principle of distinction is applied very flexibly and the rule is interpreted very (sometimes too) extensively. In other cases, the rule is simply put aside in the name of (military) necessity. Other productions, rather than focusing on the applicability or interpretation of the rule, use the legal framework as a broader narrative to (de)legitimize an armed conflict or a specific State-led operation.

The aim of this introductory chapter is to provide some reflections with regard to methodologies that are used when analysing films and TV series from an international law perspective. Different tendencies may be distinguished in the existing literature. Among them, critical studies focus on the connection between cinema and ideology, both from legal scholars already associated with critical schools of legal thought and from specialists in international relations or political science. This approach has been shared by all the authors of this book, with a double objective: first, to identify representations of international law in cinematographic productions; and, second, to try to determine some of the functions of these representations in the (international) society. In doing so, the authors will contrast the narratives of international law depicted in film and TV with the corresponding narratives advanced by legal scholars. This will lead to the identification of a cognitive dissonance between them and an assessment of its implications for general perceptions of international law.

This chapter aims to explore how film can bolster or undermine claims about the legality of the use of force. Building on the chapters in this volume by Corten and Dubuisson, it draws out three key themes, namely, genre, interpretation and interdisciplinarity. Next it offers some suggestions for further research on international law and film: first, a broader vision of world cinema; second, analysis of ideology in terms of a military-cinematicographic complex; and using Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and feminist perspectives to interpret film in ways that engage with broader debates in international law. Finally, it considers legal and visual arguments about the legality of the US military intervention in Afghanistan since 2001 with reference to Siddiq Barmak’s 2003 film Osama.

This chapter describes constructivism’s distinguishing features and how it has informed existing research on UN peacekeeping. Focusing on core constructivist concepts like norms, culture, and identity, the chapter explains that peacekeeping scholars within this approach tend to focus on ideational influences emanating from outside the UN system or on the role of intersubjective knowledge within the UN. The chapter then draws on evidence from the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) to identify areas where constructivism can further improve our understanding of UN peace operations. These include the process by which peacekeepers interpret and implement norms at the micro level; the ways in which peace operations reshape local norms, identities, and cultures, and vice versa; and, finally, the relationship between contemporary peacekeeping practices and shifting normative and political dynamics at the macro level.

UN peace operations have, since their inception, touched on core issues and concepts at the heart of the study of international relations: conflict and cooperation; sovereignty and intervention; norms and norm diffusion; the use and utility of military force; and the changing character of armed conflict. To study UN peacekeeping, therefore, is also to study international politics and, by extension, to engage in debates about the bases for international order and the prospects for international society. Although the scope and scale of UN peace operations have evolved over time, the study of UN operations needs to factor in not just discontinuities but also important elements of continuity in the history and practice of UN peacekeeping. The experience of UN operations is rich, diverse, and multilayered. The investigation and deeper understanding of that experience are certain to benefit – as the present volume demonstrates – from the application of different theoretical lenses and a range of methodological tools.

The conclusion considers the limits of military force in the central contested relationship, the Israeli–Palestinian one. Hamas and Israel clung to force as the best tool in 2014 and both paid a steep price. The chapter considers US foreign policy as well. US administrations have bolstered the dominance of the idea that force is the answer through a strong alliance with Israel while simultaneously pushing diplomatic processes that are meant to raise the profile of negotiations and mutual concessions. Israeli and Palestinian policy today both reflect the prioritization of military force and reveal the expected ramifications like insecurity and missed diplomatic opportunities. One or both could turn in a different direction, but that would require challenging the over-emphasis on forceful instruments of statecraft.

This chapter introduces the idea that, in the Arab–Israeli context, the dominant belief has been that military force is the best way for Egypt, Israel, the Palestinians, and Syria to achieve their goals. While there are some historical episodes that align with this idea, the reliance on military force often backfires. When it comes to signing peace agreements, military force cannot replace negotiations and mutual concessions. The threat or use of force often produces greater insecurity or even war. Force and coercion often obscure diplomatic openings, leading to missed diplomatic opportunities and an unsuccessful peace process.