| Summary/Abstract |
This article makes three important arguments. The first is that one of the most crucial factors in explaining the various outcomes of UN peacekeeping cases over the past seventy-five years can be found in the role of contingencies: the idiosyncratic circumstances that have combined to enable success or failure. The second is that these peacekeeping missions critically demonstrate the importance of focusing attention on the significant role of key domestic, regional, and external actors. The third is that contingencies at these three important levels, rather than any established security patterns or theories, are often the most critical factors in explaining the outcomes of UN peacekeeping missions over the past seven and a half decades. The choices of national and regional actors as well as external great powers often shape how these missions start, develop, and end. Examining interests and motivations in detail thus helps explain how and why UN peacekeeping missions have succeeded or failed.
|