Abstract
In the last decade UN peace operations have begun to explicitly seek ‘stabilization’ in the states to which they are deployed. Despite the term being included in the titles of four missions, three of which are amongst the four largest operations currently deployed, and stabilization activities being included in the mandates, there is no UN-wide interpretation of the term. Instead, the mandates include varying activities under the heading of stabilization depending on the mission. Concurrently, stabilization missions have seen the use of language such as ‘robust posture’ and ‘active patrolling’, increased logistical capabilities from Western military hardware, the encroachment of a counter-terrorism rhetoric, operations alongside host state forces, and an emphasis on (re)establishing the rule of law. This article examines the legal effects these trends could have. Due to the competing interests introduced by stabilization it is suggested that the mandates issued by the UN Security Council require further clarity and harmonisation to prevent the pursuit of lasting peace from being undermined.
Highlights
In recent years, stabilization has become entrenched in the United Nations (UN) Security Council’s work on peace operations.1 the UN itself is yet to outline an organisation-wide understanding of the term
Despite the term being included in the titles of four missions, three of which are amongst the four largest operations currently deployed, and stabilization activities being included in the mandates, there is no UN-wide interpretation of the term
Due to the competing interests introduced by stabilization it is suggested that the mandates issued by the UN Security Council require further clarity and harmonisation to prevent the pursuit of lasting peace from being undermined
Summary
Stabilization has become entrenched in the United Nations (UN) Security Council’s work on peace operations. the UN itself is yet to outline an organisation-wide understanding of the term. The effect of ‘robustness’, counter-terrorism, cooperation with the host state, and the goal of entrenching the rule of law and ending impunity These four elements reveal tensions which future mandates from the UN Security Council will need to rectify. This article argues that if the UN wishes to engage in fighting an enemy alongside the host state and international forces what needs to be addressed is harmonising the competing interests in the mandate to ensure the mission still seeks an inclusive peace process and effective national reconciliation. While it is arguably positive that the UN recognises the need to take proactive, preventative steps to minimise harm to civilians, there are tensions visible in the current mandates It is discussed below how ‘robust’ force toes a fine line between peacekeeping and peace enforcement that risks the missions becoming a party to conflicts under IHL. The final key area of stabilization mandates, advancing the rule of law and ending impunity, holds prospects for building a lasting peace but could be detrimentally affected by a counter-terrorism rhetoric or increased war-fighting
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
