| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
049561
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
|
| Description |
xx, 428p.
|
| Standard Number |
0521588375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 039194 | 341.584/DOY 039194 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
145033
|
|
|
|
|
| Edition |
2nd ed.
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016.
|
| Description |
xliii, 741p.pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9780199399499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 058661 | 341.23/CHE 058661 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
103218
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Consent to UN peacekeeping has faced powerful challenges. Host governments have either called for premature withdrawal of missions or so obstructed operations that fulfilling mandates became almost impossible. This article argues that strategies for managing deteriorating consent can be devised from relational contract theory. That theory envisages peace agreements as embodying a dynamic set of relationships among multiple actors, not only the signatories to the agreement but all stakeholders in a peace process. Original consent to the agreement - and to a peace operation deployed to support its implementation - matters, but the terms of the agreement should be understood as also encompassing the shared expectations that emerge from the ongoing relationship and the normative context in which it is embedded. The effective management of consent must account for that as well as the peacekeeping operation's own evolving relationship with the relevant actors, both internal and external.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
057477
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
081562
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the globe's dominant power with interests and influence around the world, the United States has been an essential yet uneasy partner in peace operations. This article considers three contemporary challenges that illustrate the double-edged nature of US involvement: the increasingly robust nature of peace operations, the importance of long-term political engagement, and the need for new institutional partnerships to meet increasing demand. The United States is uniquely capable of facilitating success in all three areas, yet its global status tends to raise questions about the motives of US involvement in peace operations and its ability to serve collective purposes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|