Peacekeeping as an intervention strategy utilized to contain and impede war, mitigates its intensity and geographical widescape, as well as consolidates a ceasefire and creates a space conducive to reconstruction post war (Miall, Ramsbotham, & Woodhouse, 2016). The concept of peacekeeping is said to have developed out of collective security and peace observation, which were rendered inadequate to address international conflicts given that the types of conflicts in which the United Nations became involved changed from politically-based hostilities between clear, distinguishable groups, to hostilities based on the deterioration of social structure, as well as conflicts over human rights violations and interethnic conflicts (Kosma, 1996). As a …show more content…
Under third generation peacekeeping, the context of war saw a shift in the frequency of intrastate conflict, mandating that in order for an interventionist strategy such as peacekeeping to apply, parties no longer had to come to a post agreement consensus, nor did intervention have to be short term. Furthermore, the nature of intervention saw a rise in the demand for more vigorous forces capable of dissuading aggression, as well as a change in the institution given that peace operations were no longer primarily under UN backing, but rather regional security organizations and coalitions (Miall, Ramsbotham, & Woodhouse, 2016). As a result, the distinction between UN-authorized and UN-managed non-forcible peacekeeping operations became slightly indistinguishable. Still situated in the third generation, peacekeeping today has become much more nuanced as interventionist attempt to explore the depths of conflict and affected societies, essentially aiming to facilitate social, economic and political transformation processes in order to establish sustainable peace. Apart from an increase in national security and participation. there is not much evidence that supports the notion that peacekeeping, as it had stood, has had a comprehensive or universally positive effect (Brosig & Sempijja, …show more content…
For example, CAR, DRC, Mali and Somalia can be identified as peacekeeping intervention missions that continue to be at various stages of continued violence (Brosig & Sempijja, 2017). Respectively, in each of these cases multidimensional peacekeeping hasn’t had the opportunity to succeed. The qualitative data that makes note of the widening gap between national security and personal safety following the presence of peacekeepers serves as an indicator for the seemingly unaltered influence of intervention on the scope of conflict (Brosig & Sempijja, 2017). The range of tasks a peacekeeping mission is expected to fulfill has grown significantly, this was a result of a more comprehensive grasp on the significance of security needs, which now encompasses regards for civilian protection and both human and state security. As it stands, the third generation of peacekeeping continues to develop from past generations that centered the separation of conflicting parties as opposed to building a sustainable peace that centers institution building and values of peace and not just the removal of
Canadians strongly believe that peacekeeping is about trying to protect people from extreme harm, a way of providing hope in situations that seem hopeless, and a good method of bringing peace and justice to war-torn countries or failed states. Canadians backing soldiers in their peacekeeping role has been so strong for such a long time that it has generated into their national identity. “Canadians cling to the mythology, born of the 1956 Suez Crisis, that we are a nation of peacekeepers, interposing between belligerent forces bent on war but, even though Canadian government officials and media of the 1990s called the operations in Bosnia and Somalia “peacekeeping missions,” they were something very different from Cold War-era peacekeeping.” Accordingly, over the past several decades, Canadian peacekeeping operations involving their military forces has shifted from a Pearson perspective based on humanitarian intervention to peacekeeping missions entailing massive violence. Therefore, my research paper will focus on how peacekeeping in the Canadian context has changed over the past several decades owing to the Canadian use of its military (internationally) force for extreme violence during peacekeeping missions. I wish to discuss this topic extensively within my research paper by focusing on vivid examples from UN Peacekeeping missions.
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
In the early years of Canada before Confederation Canada had been defended by the British Army, and some units known as the Canadian Militia. After a few years new units were created to defend Canada such as the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, the Royal Canadian Dragoons. These troops participated in many missions to protect Canada, one of them would be the North West Rebellion for Confederation in 1885 in which Canada fought against Saskatchewan to bring peace, and secure the province. In this battle 58 soldiers lost their life, 98 got wounded, and 26 were capture. For World at War 1 all this militias came together to create the Canadian Expeditionary force, this force was mostly full of volunteers there we around 619,646 soldiers in the force at that time in which they fought many battles during World at War 1. One of the most famous one is Vimy Ridge, at Vimy Ridge all the allied forces could not get through since the ridge Germany had a an advantage in a high location in which their army was placed. Canada as a young nation no one believed that Canada would get passed it. But on April 12, 1917 Canadian Soldiers had full control over the ridge, but this had not been achieve easily it cost the life of 10,602 Canadians. For World at War 2 in the 1940s The Canadian Militia was renamed to the Canadian Army. This new army was formed as part of NATO which is in charge of the protection of all North America. Canada also fought many battles in World at War 2 to free, and protect the liberty of other countries, and people specially the Jewish community. Since then Canada knew the great power they have to help people in need at the end of World War 2 In 1939, 20 Years later in 1956 Canada became part of the United Nations.
In August of 1992, President George Bush Sr. sent US soldiers into Somalia to provide humanitarian relief to those Somalis suffering from starvation. The major problems in Somalia started when President Mohammed Siad Barre was overthrown by a coalition of opposing clans. Although there were several opposing groups, the prominent one was led by Mohammed Farah Aidid. Following the overthrow of Barre, a massive power struggle ensued. These small scale civil wars led to the destruction of the agriculture in Somalia, which in turn led to the deprivation of food in large parts of the country. When the international community heard of this, large quantities of food were sent to ease Somali suffering. However, clan leaders like Aidid routinely hijacked food and exchanged it for weapons leaving thousands to starve to death. An estimated 300,000 Somalis died between 1991 and 1992 (Clancy 234-236). US soldiers were later sent into Somalia to capture Aidid, but when the operation got bloody, displeasing the American public, Clinton withdrew troops (Battersby 151). In The Morality of War, Brian Orend outlines ethical guidelines that should be followed in all three stages of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Orend states that a nation can be moral going into war, but immoral coming out of one. Did the US act justly in all facets of the Somali conflict? The United States espoused all the guiding principles of jus ad bellum but right intent, upheld the principals of jus in bello, and clearly failed to uphold several aspects of jus post bellum during the armed humanitarian intervention in Somalia.
helping thousands of people who are incapable of this power. Canada has been a leader
The system the UN currently has offers some perspective on the idea of conducting and participating in war. But...
The peacekeeping law is “the law that keeps the community from turning into the howling chaos the Takers imagine it to be” (118). This law promotes and protects life for all living things to grow and prosper in a community and is extremely important to a community 's stability. One branch of the family of Homo sapiens sapiens, specifically the Takers, believe that they are exempt from this law and are purposely breaking it which is dangerous to species within the community and the survival of them. Man’s excuse for breaking this law is that there is fundamentally something wrong with people and human nature itself.
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
The formation of the United Nations in 1945 marked a monumental success in the international political realm. It was founded to foster relations with its member and non-member states, encourage the respect of human rights, and fight to solve social, economic, and humanitarian issues. However, of all of these motives, its foundation was based primarily on creating peace and preventing conflict between members. The idea of collective security in the UN has become the heart of peace keeping within the union and all members vow to preserve peace and eliminate identified aggressors. Chapter VII of the UN charter is the impetus behind collective security and provides the legal foundation for the UN to eradicate all threats to the peace.
It can be traced back that Thomas Hobbes first formulated the idea of deterrence. Advocates of deterrence theory “believe that people choose to obey or violate the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions” (Onwudiwe, Odo, Onyeozili). Essentially, as stated above, individuals will engage in crime when the benefit of the crime outweighs the cost of committing the crime (punishment). Personally, I believe that individuals that are part of the Operation Ceasefire end their “street days” because they are mostly scared of the harsh consequences that will follow if they continue to engage in a life of crime. Operation Ceasefire may align well with theories such as deterrence theory, but maybe not so much with others. When
Sotomayor, Arturo C. “Peacekeeping Effects in South America: Common Experiences and Divergent Effects on Civil-Military Relations.” International Peacekeeping 17. No. 5 (2010).
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an emerging principle, developed after catastrophes such as the Rwandan genocide to ensure such a large-scale tragedy would never happen again. It presents the idea that sovereignty is not a right, and that states should allow international intervention during acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. Under the R2P, the international community has the right to defend other nations from these tragedies; however, many nations will not be obliged to be bound by an agreement, due to opposing and conflicting views and objectives. This has been demonstrated in various instances when nations are in disagreement with the planned course of action and abstained as a result. The doctrine serves as a pathway for the world’s leading powers to invade another state’s sovereignty, which could divide the members of the Security Council. Furthermore, if enacted regularly, the R2P would cause more harm than good, leading to destruction and exploitation Due to this, not all of the international community are in disagreement and thereby not obliged to act. Many states will not consider acting when a tragedy occurs, due to distrust and ongoing suspicions with these plans. This ultimately devalues the authenticity and objective of the R2P. Firstly, my paper will outline the definitions of the R2P doctrine. Secondly, the effectiveness of the R2P and its relationship with different UN members, followed by case studies. Lastly, short analysis will conclude the paper.