| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134388
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The role of force in United Nations peacekeeping has changed dramatically since the first observer mission in 1948. Once, peacekeepers used force only in the most exceptional circumstances and only in self-defense. By the mid-1970s, peacekeepers were authorized to defend the mandates of their operations, still as a variant of ‘self-defense’ but with greater scope for offensive force. Since the turn of the century, corresponding with the ‘Brahimi Report’, the language of self-defense is no longer in use in peacekeeping mandates. Instead, the Security Council routinely finds the existence of threats to international peace and security and vest ‘robust’ peacekeeping operations with the ability to use offensive force. The role of the controversial ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine in peacekeeping is examined; however, it is concluded that, as yet, the doctrine has had limited impact on the legal framework relating to peacekeeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126116
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United Nations (UN) peacekeeping 'Capstone doctrine' is the first attempt by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations/Department of Field Support (DPKO/DFS) to formulate a coherent doctrine for peacekeeping/peacebuilding missions beyond Boutros-Ghali's An Agenda for Peace and the Brahimi Report, which set out a very general approach as opposed to a doctrinal mandate. In the document, the UN lays down a framework for approaching peace operations, and also defines contemporary UN peacekeeping operations. While this document is designed, by and large, as a guide for UN personnel, it is appropriate to evaluate it to determine whether or not Capstone is consistent with theoretical literature. Furthermore, this article will assess how various components of the doctrine are derived from previous experiences. Lastly, this article will discuss how far the Capstone doctrine is consistent with the major paradigms of international relations theory, and will argue that the doctrine reflects the liberal and constructivist paradigms of international relations theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|