The United Nations and the Establishment of International Peace: Debating the Scope of UN Peacekeeping Mandates
The United Nations and the Establishment of International Peace: Debating the Scope of UN Peacekeeping Mandates (See related pages)
UN peacekeepers are often deployed, as a neutral force, to maintain peace between various fighting parties. Critics claim that UN forces are not given proper support, financially or politically, and that permanent members of the Security Council members often threaten to veto action unless the scope of operations is severely limited. Recently, some have suggested that the UN expand its concept of peacekeeping to peace enforcement. Peace enforcement missions would be different in that heavily-armed forces would possess the strength and authority to intervene before or during a fight.
Go to the UN's Peacekeeping webpage (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/), and then answer the following questions:
What aspects of the current peacekeeping protocol of the United Nations do you feel work well? Which aspects could be changed?
On the one hand, some people perceive proactive peace enforcement as humanitarian interventionism; on the other hand, others perceive proactive peace enforcement as a form of neocolonialism. Where on this spectrum do your own views lie?
What kind of international relations theory—realism, liberalism, constructivism—do you think would most advocate the use of peace enforcement? Why?
