Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mm7gn Total loading time: 0.413 Render date: 2022-08-17T01:14:55.942Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Get access

Abstract

UN peacekeeping was not designed to wield force, and the UN's permanent five (P-5), veto-wielding Security Council members do not want the UN to develop a military capacity. However, since 1999, the UN Security Council has authorized all UN multidimensional peacekeeping operations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to use force. The mandates do not serve to achieve the council's stated goal of maintaining international peace, nevertheless, the council repeats these mandates in every multidimensional peacekeeping resolution. Neither constructivist accounts of normative change, nor the rational pursuit of stated goals, nor organizational processes can explain the repetition of force mandates. Instead, we draw on insights from small-group psychology to advance a novel theoretical proposition: the repetition of force mandates is the result of “group-preserving” dynamics. The P-5 members strive to maintain their individual and collective status and legitimacy by issuing decisions on the use of force. Once members achieve a decision, the agreement is applied in future rounds of negotiations, even when the solution does not fit the new context and may appear suboptimal, illogical, or even pathological. Privileging the achievement and reproduction of agreement over its content is the essence of group preserving. We present an original data set of all peacekeeping mandates, alongside evidence from dozens of interviews with peacekeeping officials, including representatives of all of the Security Council's permanent members. We assess this original data using expected causal process observations derived from rationalist, constructivist, organizational, and psychological logics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, Graham, and Zelikow, Philip. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Anderson, Cameron, and Kildfuff, Gavin J.. 2009. The Pursuit of Status in Social Groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18 (5):295–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Autesserre, Séverine. 2010. The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael N. 1997. The UN Security Council, Indifference, and Genocide in Rwanda. Cultural Anthropology 12 (4):447578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael N., and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bones, Alan. 2001. Peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. In Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace, edited by McRae, Robert Grant and Hubert, Don, 5564. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Bosco, David. 2014. Assessing the UN Security Council: A Concert Perspective. Global Governance 20 (4):545–61.Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T. 1958. Common Fate, Similarity, and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Person as Social Entities. Behavioural Science 3 (1):1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Terrence L. 2011. Securing Approval: Domestic Politics and Multilateral Authorization for War. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, Inis L. Jr. 1966. Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations. International Organization 20 (3):367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clunan, Anne. 2014. Why Status Matters in World Politics. In Status in World Politics, edited by Paul, T.V., Larson, Deborah Welch, and Wohlforth, William C., 273–96. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Katharina P. 2007. International Organisations and Peace Enforcement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, David, and Brady, Henry E.. 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Brady, Henry E., and Seawright, Jason. 2010. Outdated Views of Qualitative Methods: Time to Move on. Political Analysis 18 (4):506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coser, Lewis. 1955. The Functions of Small Group Research. Social Problems 3 (1):16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, Philip. 2013. Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South. London: C. Hurst.Google Scholar
Dallaire, Roméo. 2004. Shake Hands with the Devil. Boston, MA: De Capo Press.Google Scholar
Dafoe, Allan, Renshon, Jonathan, and Huth, Paul. 2014. Reputation and Status as Motives for War. Annual Review of Political Science 17 (1):371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, and Powell, Walter. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2):147–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, Michael W., and Sambanis, Nicholas. 2006. Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Findlay, Trevor. 2002. The Use of Force in UN Peace Operations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52 (4):887917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Rosemary. 2014. “Doing Some Things” in the Xi Jinping Era: The UN as China's Venue of Choice. International Affairs 90 (5):1085–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, Donelson, and Burnette, Jeni. 2010. Group Processes. In Advanced Social Psychology, edited by Baumeister, E.R. and Finkel, E., 495534. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortna, Virginia Page. 2008. Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents’ Choices after Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1921. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Translated by Strachey, James. Vienna: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Gberie, Lansana. 2005. A Dirty War in West Africa: The RUF and the Destruction of Sierra Leone. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Bates, and Reilly, James. 2000. Sovereignty, Intervention, and Peacekeeping: The View from Beijing. Survival 42 (3):4159.Google Scholar
Gowan, Richard, and Gordon, Nora. 2014. Pathways to Security Council Reform. New York: Center on International Cooperation.Google Scholar
Guéhenno, Jean-Marie. 2015. The Fog of Peace: A Memoir of International Peacekeeping in the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst B. 1990. When Knowledge Is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hammarskjold, Dag. 1974–1975. Public Papers of the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, edited by Cordier, Andrew W. and Foote, Wilder. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hirono, Miwa, and Lanteigne, Marc. 2011. Introduction: China and UN Peacekeeping. International Peacekeeping 18 (3):243–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Lise. 2008. UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Lise. 2015a. Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement, and UN Reform. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16 (2):613.Google Scholar
Howard, Lise. 2015b. US Foreign Policy Habits in Ethnic Conflict. International Studies Quarterly 59 (4):721–34.Google Scholar
Howland, Todd. 2006. Peacekeeping and Conformity with Human Rights Law: How MINUSTAH Falls Short in Haiti. International Peacekeeping 13 (4):462–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2002. Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council. Global Governance 8 (1):3552.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2008. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Janis, Irving L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Deborah Welch, and Shevchenko, Alexei. 2010. Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Reponses to US Primacy. International Security 34 (4):6395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research. Human Relations 1 (2):143–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1969. Convention. London: Blackwell.Google ScholarPubMed
Lickel, Brian, Hamilton, David, Uhles, Neville, Wieczorkowska, Grazyna, Lewis, Amy, and Sherman, Steven. 2000. Varieties of Groups and the Perception of Group Entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2):223–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, Neil, and Schnabel, Albrecht. 1995. Russia's Approach to Peacekeeping. International Journal 50 (2): 294324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackinlay, John, and Cross, Peter, eds. 2003. Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1998. Juxtaposing Rationalism and Constructivism: The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization 52 (4):943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morphet, Sally. 2000. China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council: October 1971–December 1999. Security Dialogue 31 (2):151–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novosseloff, Alexandra. 2003. Le Conseil de Sécurité et la Maîtrise de la Force Armée. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
Olonisakin, Funmi. 2008. Peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Panagiotou, Ritsa. 2011. The Centrality of the United Nations in Russian Foreign Policy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 27 (2):195216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polikanov, Dmitry. 2003. The Evolution of Russian Peacekeeping under President Putin. In Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, edited by Mackinlay, John and Cross, Peter, 183201. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Renshon, Jonathan. 2017. Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John. 1993. Wandering in the Void: Charting the UN's New Strategic Role. Foreign Affairs 72 (5):2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartre, Patrice. 2011. Making UN Peacekeeping More Robust: Protecting the Mission, Persuading the Actors. International Peace Institute.Google Scholar
Stähle, Stefan. 2008. China's Shifting Attitude Towards UN Peacekeeping Operations. The China Quarterly 195: 631–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, Thierry. 2011. A Critique of Robust Peacekeeping in Contemporary Peace Operations. International Peacekeeping 18 (2):152–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, Thierry. 2016. France: The Unlikely Return to UN Peacekeeping. International Peacekeeping 23 (5):610–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Alexander. 2009. Channels of Power: The UN Security Council and US Statecraft in Iraq. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, John, and Tajfel, Henri. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Austin, William G. and Worchel, Stephen, 3347. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2017a. UN Peacekeeping Operations Fact Sheet. Available from <http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/bnotelatest.pdf>. Accessed 19 October 2017..+Accessed+19+October+2017.>Google Scholar
United Nations. 2017b. What Is Peacekeeping? Available from <http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peacekeeping.shtml>. Accessed 19 October 2017..+Accessed+19+October+2017.>Google Scholar
United Nations. 2017c. Troop and Police Contributors. Available from <http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml>. Accessed 19 October 2017..+Accessed+19+October+2017.>Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2001. Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action. American Political Science Review 95 (4):845–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2005. The Political Origins of the UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force. International Organization 59 (3):527–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreeland, James Raymond, and Dreher, Axel. 2014. The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Welch, David A. 1992. The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect. International Security 17 (2):112–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlforth, William C. 2009. Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War. World Politics 61 (1):2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Jiechi. 2016. Speech at the Reception for the Forty-fifth Anniversary of the Restoration of the Lawful Seat of the PRC in the United Nations. Beijing, 25 October.Google Scholar
Yermolaev, Michael. 2000. Russia's International Peacekeeping and Conflict Management in the Post-Soviet Environment. Monograph no. 44, Boundaries of Peace Support Boundaries of Peace Support Operations. Moscow: Center for International Security and Conflict Management.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Howard and Dayal supplementary material

Appendix

Download Howard and Dayal supplementary material(File)
File 140 KB
23
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *