| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The concept of robust peacekeeping emerged in response to the failures of the UN in Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where peacekeepers were passive witnesses of massive violations to human rights, allegedly because they were not 'robust enough'. Although robust peacekeeping is not a new concept and has been partially implemented in some operations (Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Lebanon), it attracted renewed attention in 2008-10 with developments in its conceptualization. While it recognizes the necessity and virtue of a robust approach as a protection mechanism for peacekeepers, this article questions the extent to which robust peacekeeping is politically acceptable and operationally viable. Beyond the doctrinal difficulty of ensuring compatibility of robustness with the principles of peace operations, robust peacekeeping is directly challenged by the perennial constraints of contemporary peace operations, such as weak political support, the erratic availability and quality of troops, and the reticence of troop contributors to embrace a robust approach. Overall, while robustness is presented as a solution to the 'credibility gap' that the UN faces, its relevance in the light of these problems is dubious.
|