Still the Spectre at the Feast: Comparisons between Peacekeeping and Imperialism in Peacekeeping Studies Today

The sheer ambition and scale of UN peacebuilding today inevitably invokes comparison with historic practices of colonialism and imperialism, from critics and supporters of peacebuilding alike. The legitimacy of post-settlement peacebuilding is often seen to hinge on the question of the extent to which it transcends historic practices of imperialism. This article offers a critique of how these comparisons are made in the extant scholarship, and argues that supporters of peacekeeping deploy an under-theorized and historically one-sided view of imperialism. The article argues that the attempt to flatter peacebuilding by comparison with imperialism fails, and that the theory and history of imperialism still provide a rich resource for both the critique and conceptualization of peacekeeping practice. The article concludes by suggesting how new forms of imperial power can be projected through peacebuilding

From ISIS to ICISS: A Critical Return to the Responsibility to Protect Report

In light of the post-intervention crisis in Libya, this article revisits critically the vision of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) offered in the 2001 report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) – frequently taken as the conceptual bedrock for R2P doctrine. It is argued that the perverse effect of ICISS doctrine is to replace political responsibility with paternalism. The demand that states be made accountable to the international community ends by making states accountable for their people rather than to their people. The argument is developed across five critical theses. These include claims that R2P changes the burden of justification for intervention; that it usurps popular sovereignty in favour of state power; and that it diffuses post-conflict responsibilities. The article concludes that pre-emptive ‘human protection’ efforts risk crowding out questions of systemic transformation, i.e., what kind of an international order we want to live in

Syrians Crushed Between Humanitarianism and Realism

With the UN High Commissioner for Refugees announcing early this year that the war in Syria may have claimed as many as 60,000 lives, two op-eds published late in 2012 usefully exemplify two contrasting frames that have thus far dominated international responses to the conflict—namely, the humanitarian frame and the geopolitical frame. Yet despite the apparent contrasts between these two frameworks, both reflect a similar contempt for the Syrian people and their right to self-determination. The humanitarian framing of the conflict emphasizes the scale of human suffering and the need to alleviate it, while the geopolitical frame accentuates political interests and international rivalries. Neither one prioritizes the needs and interests of the Syrian people. Let us review the two approaches in more depth

Responsibility to Regulate: How the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Expands State Power

Like most UN reports, particularly those concerned with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect (RtoP), the latest report of the UN Secretary-General is filled with plenty of pious guff mixed in with the platitudes that engulf UN diplomacy. But buried within the blathering are also some disturbing prescriptions for how the UN envisages rolling out RtoP around the world. I want to draw attention to three specific points in order to consider what these tell us about RtoP as a political model. First, I will look at the treatment of media and speech in the report; second, how the use of military force (the so-called third pillar of the doctrine) sits alongside the other pillars of RtoP; and third, the role of regional organizations sketched out within the report

Peacekeeping after Brexit

A one-day roundtable examining the UK’s relationship with UN peace operations in the context of Brexit was held on 7 September 2018 at RUSI. Organised by the British International Studies Association (BISA) Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Working Group in partnership with RUSI, the roundtable took as its starting point the broader question of the role of multilateral institutions in UK foreign and defence policy after the UK formally leaves the EU, and sought to identify and understand the role of peace operations within the framework of the ‘Global Britain’ agenda.Some 30 delegates from academia and the policy and NGO sectors provided perspectives on how different forms of engagement with UN peace operations could strengthen the UK government’s commitment to supporting a rules-based international system. The roundtable provided an opportunity for more focused policy discussions pertaining to how the UK commits to UN operations, what the commitment should look like, and what opportunities and challenges exist in the varying ways in which the UK can approach UN operations. This conference report captures the key issues and themes discussed by participants

Framing Intervention in a Multipolar World

In this contribution to the forum, I draw attention to the persistent inadequacy of existing categories in the field of international studies to capture and frame patterns of intervention today. It is to be expected that this inadequacy will become more and more apparent as the unipolar system of the post-Cold War era evolves into a multipolar system in which patterns of intervention will become more complex. I will show this by focusing on two aspects of contemporary intervention. First, I will argue that patterns of intervention today invert the classical predictions and expectations of International Relations theory with regard to the behaviour of emerging powers (resulting in what I call ‘reverse revisionism’ – i.e. revisionism by leading states). Second, I will argue that the categories applied to understand Western interventions, already problematic in themselves, cannot be stretched to cover the behaviour of non-Western and emerging states

From peacekeepers to praetorians – how participating in peacekeeping operations may subvert democracy

This article provides a heuristic study of three cases where participation in peacekeeping operations prompted military rule in the peacekeeper-contributing state. These three atypical cases contradict the theory of diversionary peace, which claims that contributing to peacekeeping operations abroad should stimulate democracy at home. The experience of these three countries also calls into question the conventional wisdom that strongly associates peacekeeping with liberal democratic institutions, outcomes and practices. Via triangulation across literature, reports, elite interviews and WikiLeaks cables, these cases are examined in order to identify more generalisable observations regarding how participation in peacekeeping may enhance the role of the military at the expense of democratic order and civilian rule in the contributing state. The theory of diversionary peace is shown to suffer from serious conceptual flaws. Some preliminary efforts are made to generalise the findings, with Ghana and Uruguay identified as warranting further investigation. A number of variables are identified as offering scope for generalisation, namely, revenue, leadership and military size. Several promising areas for further research are also identified: how military dependence on peacekeeping may make political systems more permeable to outside influence, how far the United Nations (UN) can politically influence its contributor states and how peacebuilding may affect peacekeepers’ understanding of their role in their own countries. By examining the feedback effects of peacekeeping on peacekeeper-contributing states, the article reverses the conventional focus of peacekeeping scholarship and contributes to the growing literature examining the wider ramifications and unintended consequences of liberal conflict management

Peacekeeping after Brexit. RUSI Conference Report, December 2018

A one-day roundtable examining the UK's relationship with UN peace operations in the context of Brexit was held on 7 September 2018 at RUSI. Organised by the British International Studies Association (BISA) Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Working Group in partnership with RUSI, the roundtable took as its starting point the broader question of the role of multilateral institutions in UK foreign and defence policy after the UK formally leaves the EU, and sought to identify and understand the role of peace operations within the framework of the 'Global Britain' agenda.Some 30 delegates from academia and the policy and NGO sectors provided perspectives on how different forms of engagement with UN peace operations could strengthen the UK government's commitment to supporting a rules-based international system. The roundtable provided an opportunity for more focused policy discussions pertaining to how the UK commits to UN operations, what the commitment should look like, and what opportunities and challenges exist in the varying ways in which the UK can approach UN operations. This conference report captures the key issues and themes discussed by participants