Notes on Humanitarian
Intervention and Peacebuilding
Lecture 1, 29 th of November:
Humanitarian intervention: the threat or the use of force against a State by another
State/Group of States/regional organisations with the aim of preventing or ending widespread
and grave breaches of fundamental human rights, mostly without the acquiescence of the
State in whose territory force is to be applied.
Peace operations are not a fringe activity of the UN, as it has many standing missions all over
the world.
There are differing motivations to contribute to multilateral peace operations, being a
financial stimulus, or historical experiences, such as genocide.
Historically, peacekeeping operations “consist of military operations undertaken with the
consent of all major parties to a dispute, and are designed to monitor and facilitate
implementation of an agreement to support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political
settlement.” The use of force was generally limited to self-defence. However, peace
enforcement operations are generally coercive in nature and rely on the threat or use of
force. Consequently, there may be partial or no consent by parties. Their purpose is “not to
destroy or defeat an adversary, but to use force or threat of force to establish a safe and secure
environment so that peacebuilding can succeed”.
Concluding, PKO’s treat all sides equally and fairly, and apply their mandate without
prejudice, whilst PEO’s enforce the mandate on violators when necessary, and are principally
impartial.
Peacebuilding covers post-conflict actions, predominantly diplomatic, economic, legal and
security related, aimed at strengthening political settlements and legitimate governance and
rebuilding governmental infrastructure and institutions. It begins while PEO’s or PKO’s are
underway and may continue for years.
If in a conflict the military dimension becomes more difficult, the UN may subcontract the
conflict to a leading nation or regional organisation under their mandate.
1
,UN peacekeeping has as followed evolved:
o First generation: peace monitoring, focus on consent and impartiality, only interstate
conflict, and conflict was used for self-defence only.
o Second generation: mixed mandates, with more different kind of operations. Consent
and impartiality were found to be impractical and problematic, as intrastate conflicts
were also tackled.
o Third generation: expanded peacekeeping within the ability of the UN. Missions
became more complex, smaller in size, and were focused on peace building. This did
not generally include peace enforcement. The mandate was leading, and the use of
force was allowed to enforce this.
o Fourth generation: even more expanded peacekeeping and even statebuilding, with the
UN taking on more peacebuilding activities. Here, lead nations or regional
organisations are conducting peace enforcement operations.
Peacekeeping operations had originally three major purposes, being separation of conflict
parties, monitoring of ceasefire, and the establishment of buffer zones. They also had to be
transparent (due to the requirement of consent), which is opposite to the guiding principle of
military operations, namely deception.
As peace operations have become more difficult and have expanded in their kinds of
operations, the UN has often called for additional resources, which were not granted by the
member states.
Peacekeeping has gone through a crisis, as high ambitions, insufficient means, and structural
shortcomings have led to a retreat from peacekeeping and a reluctance of the West to act
under UN command.
Following genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda, it became clear that the UN has no combat
operations capability. Ongoing operations are also problematic for UN’s limited amount of
resources. The Brahimi report of 2000 proposes recommendations for improving the
capabilities of the UN, namely via improving decision-making at the UN HQ, reforming
mandating and resources, ensuring rapid and effective deployment, and improving the
effectiveness of deployed forces. However, member states were reluctant to allow these
reforms, as it may infer with their national interests.
2
,Post-Cold War, a new world order had arisen, marked by a positive mood and ‘new wars’
(intrastate conflicts). State sovereignty was contained by globalisation and a normative
change, being an expanded concept of security and humanitarianism. Europe’s strategic
culture was marked by multilateralism, cooperation and soft power.
Military technology has evolved to be more precise, which avoids collateral damage and thus
political fallout.
Peacekeeping went through a quantitative change, as there was more demand, increase in
availability, and an increase in participating states. It went also through a qualitative change,
as they now were deployed for intra state conflicts, without consent, became more
complex/expansive, and did not per se happen under UN banner, but also under the mandate
of regional organisations.
Peace operations have the following theories:
o Liberal peace theory: liberal democracies do not fight each other and are less likely
to descend into civil war. They recognise each other’s legitimacy and protect trade
interests. Consequently, peace operations try to establish democratic societies and free
market economies.
o Cosmopolitanism: the enforcement of cosmopolitan law, namely international human
rights. Key to resolving new wars is the construction of legitimate political authority,
with peacekeepers functioning as law enforcement.
o Critical theory: disputes neutrality of peacekeeping, as it is based on dominant norms
and ideologies, and looks at the interest behind reality. Hence, peace operations aim to
maintain an existing order that is compatible with capitalist global political economy.
The Blair doctrine and Kofi Annan’s speech mark a redefinition of state sovereignty, based
on a broader definition on human security (as opposed to traditional security, which looked
at the state as the most important entity, to which everything is subordinate).
Under responsibility to protect, the state enjoys sovereignty given that is upholds its
responsibilities towards its citizens. Peace operations are possible without the consent of this
state, given that this state has failed its responsibilities towards human security, and under
specific prescribed conditions, namely genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes. Additionally, the international community has an obligation to assist a given
state to uphold its responsibilities towards their citizens.
3
, Critiques hereon are the assumption of fundamental human rights are self-evident, it favours
more powerful states, opens possibility to abuse, violates the right to self-determination, peace
operations tend to prolong wars or create unstable peace, and the application of force
inevitable produces more humanitarian suffering.
Into the 21st century, there is an increase in humanitarianism and the emergence of
responsibility to protect. There is forceful political backing, and international development
and security agendas are merged. Interventions occur outside of the UN command structure.
The UN will have differing goals and roles as the intensity of a conflict changes over time.
Development: immunity of peacekeepers under pressure by the UN itself, due to allegations
of sexual violence.
However, interventions serve to extend the time that combatants fight, do nothing to decrease
the duration of a civil war, and do not promote democratic transitions as they rather restrict, as
opposed to facilitate this. Additionally, biased interventions are more likely to lead to an
escalation of a civil war than its termination, and they increase the time until the onset of
negotiations.
4
Intervention and Peacebuilding
Lecture 1, 29 th of November:
Humanitarian intervention: the threat or the use of force against a State by another
State/Group of States/regional organisations with the aim of preventing or ending widespread
and grave breaches of fundamental human rights, mostly without the acquiescence of the
State in whose territory force is to be applied.
Peace operations are not a fringe activity of the UN, as it has many standing missions all over
the world.
There are differing motivations to contribute to multilateral peace operations, being a
financial stimulus, or historical experiences, such as genocide.
Historically, peacekeeping operations “consist of military operations undertaken with the
consent of all major parties to a dispute, and are designed to monitor and facilitate
implementation of an agreement to support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political
settlement.” The use of force was generally limited to self-defence. However, peace
enforcement operations are generally coercive in nature and rely on the threat or use of
force. Consequently, there may be partial or no consent by parties. Their purpose is “not to
destroy or defeat an adversary, but to use force or threat of force to establish a safe and secure
environment so that peacebuilding can succeed”.
Concluding, PKO’s treat all sides equally and fairly, and apply their mandate without
prejudice, whilst PEO’s enforce the mandate on violators when necessary, and are principally
impartial.
Peacebuilding covers post-conflict actions, predominantly diplomatic, economic, legal and
security related, aimed at strengthening political settlements and legitimate governance and
rebuilding governmental infrastructure and institutions. It begins while PEO’s or PKO’s are
underway and may continue for years.
If in a conflict the military dimension becomes more difficult, the UN may subcontract the
conflict to a leading nation or regional organisation under their mandate.
1
,UN peacekeeping has as followed evolved:
o First generation: peace monitoring, focus on consent and impartiality, only interstate
conflict, and conflict was used for self-defence only.
o Second generation: mixed mandates, with more different kind of operations. Consent
and impartiality were found to be impractical and problematic, as intrastate conflicts
were also tackled.
o Third generation: expanded peacekeeping within the ability of the UN. Missions
became more complex, smaller in size, and were focused on peace building. This did
not generally include peace enforcement. The mandate was leading, and the use of
force was allowed to enforce this.
o Fourth generation: even more expanded peacekeeping and even statebuilding, with the
UN taking on more peacebuilding activities. Here, lead nations or regional
organisations are conducting peace enforcement operations.
Peacekeeping operations had originally three major purposes, being separation of conflict
parties, monitoring of ceasefire, and the establishment of buffer zones. They also had to be
transparent (due to the requirement of consent), which is opposite to the guiding principle of
military operations, namely deception.
As peace operations have become more difficult and have expanded in their kinds of
operations, the UN has often called for additional resources, which were not granted by the
member states.
Peacekeeping has gone through a crisis, as high ambitions, insufficient means, and structural
shortcomings have led to a retreat from peacekeeping and a reluctance of the West to act
under UN command.
Following genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda, it became clear that the UN has no combat
operations capability. Ongoing operations are also problematic for UN’s limited amount of
resources. The Brahimi report of 2000 proposes recommendations for improving the
capabilities of the UN, namely via improving decision-making at the UN HQ, reforming
mandating and resources, ensuring rapid and effective deployment, and improving the
effectiveness of deployed forces. However, member states were reluctant to allow these
reforms, as it may infer with their national interests.
2
,Post-Cold War, a new world order had arisen, marked by a positive mood and ‘new wars’
(intrastate conflicts). State sovereignty was contained by globalisation and a normative
change, being an expanded concept of security and humanitarianism. Europe’s strategic
culture was marked by multilateralism, cooperation and soft power.
Military technology has evolved to be more precise, which avoids collateral damage and thus
political fallout.
Peacekeeping went through a quantitative change, as there was more demand, increase in
availability, and an increase in participating states. It went also through a qualitative change,
as they now were deployed for intra state conflicts, without consent, became more
complex/expansive, and did not per se happen under UN banner, but also under the mandate
of regional organisations.
Peace operations have the following theories:
o Liberal peace theory: liberal democracies do not fight each other and are less likely
to descend into civil war. They recognise each other’s legitimacy and protect trade
interests. Consequently, peace operations try to establish democratic societies and free
market economies.
o Cosmopolitanism: the enforcement of cosmopolitan law, namely international human
rights. Key to resolving new wars is the construction of legitimate political authority,
with peacekeepers functioning as law enforcement.
o Critical theory: disputes neutrality of peacekeeping, as it is based on dominant norms
and ideologies, and looks at the interest behind reality. Hence, peace operations aim to
maintain an existing order that is compatible with capitalist global political economy.
The Blair doctrine and Kofi Annan’s speech mark a redefinition of state sovereignty, based
on a broader definition on human security (as opposed to traditional security, which looked
at the state as the most important entity, to which everything is subordinate).
Under responsibility to protect, the state enjoys sovereignty given that is upholds its
responsibilities towards its citizens. Peace operations are possible without the consent of this
state, given that this state has failed its responsibilities towards human security, and under
specific prescribed conditions, namely genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes. Additionally, the international community has an obligation to assist a given
state to uphold its responsibilities towards their citizens.
3
, Critiques hereon are the assumption of fundamental human rights are self-evident, it favours
more powerful states, opens possibility to abuse, violates the right to self-determination, peace
operations tend to prolong wars or create unstable peace, and the application of force
inevitable produces more humanitarian suffering.
Into the 21st century, there is an increase in humanitarianism and the emergence of
responsibility to protect. There is forceful political backing, and international development
and security agendas are merged. Interventions occur outside of the UN command structure.
The UN will have differing goals and roles as the intensity of a conflict changes over time.
Development: immunity of peacekeepers under pressure by the UN itself, due to allegations
of sexual violence.
However, interventions serve to extend the time that combatants fight, do nothing to decrease
the duration of a civil war, and do not promote democratic transitions as they rather restrict, as
opposed to facilitate this. Additionally, biased interventions are more likely to lead to an
escalation of a civil war than its termination, and they increase the time until the onset of
negotiations.
4
