UN: political missions are gradually replacing peacekeeping -- why that's dangerous

As the world’s leaders and their diplomats prepare to meet for the 75th session of the UN general assembly, much of the discussion will be virtual – and dominated by the response to COVID-19. When it comes to global peace and security, one of the UN’s core remits, coronavirus has had only a muted impact on peacekeeping operations. At the same time, longstanding calls to transform UN peacekeeping have made little progress. The scale of UN peacekeeping was already in decline before coronavirus. And yet peacekeepers are a vital tool in the UN’s armoury to protect vulnerable people the world over

Standing alongside your friends

Why do countries contribute troops to UN peacekeeping? Recognizing the incentives to free ride on the contributions of other countries, existing explanations have tended to focus on the private benefits of providing troops. There has been particular emphasis on some major contributing countries that gain financially from providing peacekeepers. An alternative explanation could be that countries prefer to deploy troops to peacekeeping alongside countries with similar foreign policy preferences in order to maximize jointly produced private benefits. Accordingly, the willingness to provide peacekeepers should depend on which other countries are providing troops to peacekeeping operations. The implications are explored within the context of games on networks, and it is demonstrated that in equilibrium countries that are more Bonacich central in the network of foreign policy preference contribute disproportionally to UN peacekeeping. Based on actual contributions to UN peacekeeping from 1990 until 2011, we find that policy complementarities explain why countries provide a larger proportion of peacekeepers to a particular mission. Importantly, centrality in the network of policy complementarities matters and not simply that countries have moderate policy preferences. There is robust evidence for the prevalence of peacekeeping alongside your ‘friends’; in effect, countries with a lot of ‘friends’ contribute more peacekeepers

European integration constrains party competition in the member states

Kyriaki Nanou and Han Dorussen describe their research into the effects of European integration on electoral competition in the EU’s member states. Their analysis considers how parties have changed their positions over time in nine distinct policy domains with varying degrees of regulation at the European level. They find that the distance between party policy positions has decreased in those areas where the involvement of the EU has increased. The effect is unique for member states of the European Union, but not equally pronounced for all parties. The EU has had the most impact on limiting the policies of larger, mainstream and pro-EU parties

European Integration, Intergovernmental Bargaining, and Convergence of Party Programmes

Over the past 50 years, the European Union (EU) has dramatically increased its policy-making power. However, there remains considerable variation over time as well as across policy areas in the relative power of the EU and the member states. The variation is likely to influence EU-wide bargaining. Following the logic of bargaining games with domestically constrained actors, or two-level games, the changes in the bargaining environment may also influence party competition within the member states of the European Union. Using manifesto data for 1951–2001, this article examines convergence of party programmes across Western Europe. It is shown that European integration has increasingly constrained the range of policy platforms. Moreover, we generally find a stronger effect if and when countries are actually members of the EU. European integration bolsters programmatic convergence of Euro-friendly as well as Eurosceptic parties. However, European integration particularly influences the convergence of Eurosceptic parties in EU member states

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Expert Interviews

Testing the reliability of experts should be a key element of expert interviews. Using the Condorcet Jury Theorem, it is shown that expert reliability can provide an indication of the validity of expert-opinion data. The theoretical framework is applied to expert-interview data collected in the Domestic Structures and European Integration (DOSEI) project. Special attention is paid to the role of ‘leading’ experts and salient issues. Evaluating the DOSEI data, the main findings are that (i) with some exceptions, there are acceptable levels of inter-expert agreement, (ii) whether the leading expert is included or not does not make a large difference to expert agreement, and (iii) experts are more in agreement on salient issues

Peacekeeping after Covid-19

The 2020 Covid-19 pandemic may not be a game changer for future peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, but it is likely to strengthen developments that have been on-going since the early 2010s. Since then, major global and regional powers have increasingly pursued self-interested policies, interventions have become less accepted by host countries, and the UN is more financially constrained. These developments all point towards fewer and smaller interventions. Responses to Covid-19 so far suggest these trends to continue. Arguably, this hampers effective and collaborative action against global challenges such as Covid-19

Research Findings on the Evolution of Peacekeeping

Peacekeeping has evolved both in its focus and in setting increasingly ambitious goals. In effect, the referent object of peacekeeping—what and whose peace is to be kept—has changed. The peace that is to be kept has evolved from a negative conception of peace to encompassing an increasingly positive understanding of peace. Similarly, the object of the peace has shifted from the global to the national, and ultimately to the local. In effect, this has raised the bar for peacekeeping. Peacekeeping research has mirrored these changes in the expectations and practice of peacekeeping, where the (in)effectiveness of peacekeeping has remained a constant concern. The evaluation has shifted from the authorization and organization of peacekeeping missions to the impact of peacekeepers in avoiding the recurrence of conflict, to ultimately the ability of peacekeepers to change the situation on the ground as well as the interaction between peacekeepers and the local population. Research on peacekeeping has become increasingly methodologically sophisticated. Originally, qualitative case studies provided a largely critical evaluation of the effect of peacekeeping. Large-n quantitative studies have reassessed where peacekeepers are deployed and who provides peacekeepers. Controlling for selection bias and possible endogeneity, quantitative research finds that peacekeeping makes the recurrence of conflict less likely. Disaggregate data on peacekeeping confirm that peacekeeping contains local conflict and protects local civilian populations. At the same time, peacekeepers have had only limited success in positively affecting conflict societies by means of security sector reform and building state capacity. There is little evidence that peacekeeping is able to support democratization and economic development.</p

Trust in peacebuilding organizations: A survey experiment in Haiti

Peacebuilding organizations are important to support development in countries disrupted by conflict or disasters. However, to function effectively, these organizations need to generate trust among locals. Haiti has been flooded with foreign intervention following political upheaval in the 1990s and even more so after the earthquake in 2010. The massive external involvement largely by-passed government institutions leading Haiti to be described as a ‘republic of NGOs’. The role of foreigners has become increasingly contested, but little is known about whether Haitians consider all interventions and interveners similarly. Our study examines variation in trust in political organizations, such as the UN, INGOs, and local community organizations, reporting on a country-wide survey experiment included about 3,000 respondents held in Haiti in the autumn of 2019. Our study finds that identifying the type of organization impacts significantly on people’s expectations and trust. Contrary to common perceptions, we find no clear evidence that local organizations are trusted more than external organizations. Local organizations are, however, seen as more capable than external organizations. INGOs are generally seen as more inclusive and least affected by corruption. In line with our expectations, Haitians view the UN as least inclusive

ANVIL Deliverable 5.1: Report on EU added-value for policy stakeholders

This report constitutes Deliverable 5.1 of the FP7 Security Programme Coordination and Support Action ‘Analysis of Civil Security Systems in Europe’ (ANVIL, Grant Agreement no. 284678). Deliverable 5.1 is a report onwork package 5, which is dedicatedto providingpolicy stakeholders with an EU added-valuecontribution in civil security. The definition of EU added-valuefor ANVIL follows a dual rationale. In administrative terms, the concept means the added-valueof the project itself for civil security policy-making communities in Europe. Simply put, it asks how beneficial the results of this EU-funded project are for the end-users in their everyday practice of drafting civil security and civil protection recommendations. A second definition of EU added-valuedraws on the nature of our study and its content, and explores whether additional EU actions related to crisis management can have a positive impact on the delivery of civil protection at national level. In WP5 we have taken both definitions into consideration. WP5’s final evaluation workshop oscillatesbetween both definitions

Political Initiatives and Peacekeeping: Assessing Multiple UN Conflict Resolution Tools

The United Nations Peacemaking Initiative (UNPI) Data Project compiles data on the full spectrum of UN institutions aimed at conflict prevention and crisis management, mediation, peacekeeping and –building. The ultimate aim of the project is to provide an empirical basis to assess the relative contributions of various UN instruments that attempt to manage violent conflict. In particular, the data seeks to provide researchers the opportunity to study possible selection bias in their implementation, and any effects of how the different instruments are sequenced or applied simultaneously; in short in what ways the various instruments are complements or substitutes