Multinational Peace Operations Research Articles

Ad hoc coalitions: From hierarchical to network accountability in peace operations?

AbstractLaunching multinational peace operations are time and politically sensitive decisions that frequently involve the use of force. As a result, a host of accountability issues arise. To date, mainly backward‐looking and hierarchical accountability measures have been developed to guide the implementation of multinational peace operations led by the most prominent actors in this policy domain: intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and ad hoc coalitions (AHCs). We argue that the existing accountability mechanisms have their flaws, which hypothetically speaking could at least be partly addressed by converting AHCs into network hubs with an emphasis on pluralistic and horizontal accountability practices. AHCs bring a diverse set of actors together and operate with a light institutional framework, in which actors meet on equal grounds. If used as network hubs, AHCs can facilitate an open information exchange and exchange of best practices.

Peacekeepers Facilitating Human Rights Violations: The Liability of the Dutch State in the Mothers of Srebrenica Cases

This article provides a critical reading of the judgments of The Hague District Court and especially The Hague Court of Appeal in the case of Mothers of Srebrenica v. the State of the Netherlands, which concerned the liability in tort of the Dutch State for facilitating the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in 1995. It engages with the courts’ considerations regarding the attribution of conduct to the State in UN peacekeeping operations, the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties, the State obligation to prevent genocide, and the State’s liability for damages. While not fully agreeing with the courts’ argumentation, the author concludes that the judgments contribute to the refinement of the law and practice of State responsibility in respect of wrongful acts committed in complex multinational peace operations.

Military Cultures and Force Employment in Peace Operations

ABSTRACTAlthough hundreds of thousands of soldiers from different national contingents are deployed every year in multinational peace operations, no previous study has examined differences in peacekeeping practices along national lines. This paper first documents systematically differences in the way national contingents behave during peace operations in their respective area of operation. In a second step, it argues that these differences in behavior are largely consistent with the most important traits of each army's military culture. Based on extensive fieldwork conducted between 2007 and 2014 in Lebanon and Afghanistan, the paper shows how, within each mission, Italian soldiers prioritized humanitarian activities, while the French engaged in more patrolling activities, despite being both contingents deployed under similar conditions. These variations in behavior are consistent with the way French and Italian soldiers perceive the mission and context in which they deployed. And both the differences in behavior and perception are in line with the respective armies' military cultures. This paper contributes to the debate on the role of ideational factors in international politics and in particular to the ongoing discussion on strategic and military cultures.

The Reluctant Peacekeeper: France and the Use of Force in Peace Operations

The French doctrine towards peace operations has, over the last two decades, reflected the ambivalence of France’s position, stretched between on the one hand a military culture that places the use of force at the centre of strategy and on the other hand multidimensional operations that by their nature integrate a large range of activities. As a consequence France has evolved as a ‘reluctant peacekeeper’: while it has been significantly involved in peace operations since the end of the Cold War, the military has never felt comfortable with the peacekeeping concept, seen as a dilution of their primary function of fighting wars. This tension has shaped both doctrinal development and operations. Twenty years after the French engagement in former Yugoslavia, lessons have been learnt, and policy-makers have become aware of the evolution of conflict management and the subsequent necessity to integrate the military dimension into a broader framework. Yet France’s policy is still shaped by a certain aversion towards the concept of long-term multinational peace operations, and a parallel preference for more focused and reactive operations. The merits of the use of force are central to these debates. While these policy preferences are responses to legitimate concerns about both the efficiency of foreign interventions and the soldier’s identity, they also raise questions as to their compatibility with the long term and multidimensional requirements of bringing sustainable peace in fragile states.

How does the involvement of a multinational peacekeeping force affect the classification of a situation?

The ‘debate’ section of the Review aims at contributing to the reflection on current ethical, legal, or practical controversies around humanitarian issues.In this issue of the Review, we invited two experts in international humanitarian law (IHL) and multinational peace operations –Professor Eric DavidandProfessor Ola Engdahl– to debate on the way in which the involvement of a multinational force may affect the classification of a situation. This question is particularly relevant to establishing whether the situation amounts to an armed conflict or not and, if so, whether the conflict is international or non-international in nature. This in turn will determine the rights and obligations of each party, especially in a context in which multinational forces are increasingly likely to participate in the hostilities.

The Responsibility to Protect and the Responsibility While Protecting: Why Did Brazil Write a Letter to the UN?

The responsibility to protect was invoked by the United Nations (UN) Security Council in support of its authorization of a military intervention in Libya in 2011. In the wake of the intervention, Brazil approached the UN with a new doctrine: the responsibility while protecting. The responsibility while protecting implies a greater degree of caution on the part of the international community in its exercise of the responsibility to protect. Intentionally or unintentionally, Brazil mixes aspects of the jus ad bellum with aspects of the jus in bello in the new doctrine. This is controversial and potentially detrimental to both areas of law. An additional layer of limitations on the use of armed force in multinational peace operations is introduced beyond the existing restrictions on warfare following from international humanitarian law. A lack of clarity pertaining to the use of force and to the respective roles of the Security Council and the General Assembly in this respect in the exercise of the responsibility to protect contribute to making the responsibility while protecting seem increasingly enigmatic. Interpreted constructively, however, the responsibility while protecting simply urges the international community to follow international law. This would be good.

AN AIRBORNE CAPABILITY FOR SOUTH AFRICA FROM A SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES PERSPECTIVE

Special Operations Forces (SOF) have received significant emphasis over the last decade, as armed forces require highly trained and rapid deployable forces to deal with asymmetric threats. The South African (SA) Army identified the need for an SOF capability in its long-term strategy, and airborne forces form an important component in its envisioned Contingency Brigade. This article examines the utility of contemporary airborne forces despite the decline in major parachute assaults. It also explains the importance of airborne forces for South Africa with reference to its defence policy and defence commitments. The article concludes that an SOF capability will enable the SA Army to operate better across the conflict spectrum, including robust multinational peace operations in Africa, which mostly involve insurgencies. The article also argues that South Africa needs a balanced airborne capability before it can establish an SOF capability. The intended conversion of airborne forces to SOF will require considerable changes in training and doctrine.

Driven by peace operations: a balanced development of the ROK–U.S. alliance

Abstract This article explores ways to find a balance in the asymmetry reflected in ROK–U.S. security relations. For a bilateral alliance to be developed into a healthy strategic partnership, reciprocity should be applied. From the outset, however, the ROK–U.S. alliance was born out of an imbalance, and this character still persists. With no substantial change in the North's threats and geopolitical settings of the Korean peninsula, the gravity of the alliance will continue to lean toward the United States. However, turning to the global dimension, there is room for balancing the relationship on the part of the ROK. It is to take part in the U.S.-led Multinational Peace Operations. After 9/11, the United States has badly needed assistance from its allies, engaging in a tough war on terrorism. So far the ROK has deployed troops several times as part of the U.S.-led Multinational Forces (MNF) missions. Yet, except for fighting in the Vietnam War, South Korea's troop deployment appears relatively limited, th...

Cultural Differences in Multinational Peace Operations: A Slovenian Perspective

The article is based on research conducted at the Defence Research Centre, emphasizing the qualitative data gathering conducted among members of the Slovenian Armed Forces (SAF) in the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL II) mission in 2007–09. Complex peace operations, as opposed to traditional ones, require a multinational structure and cooperation with several non-military actors/subjects. Trying to be effective, doing the job as well as possible and surviving the situation of living in a limited area with formal and informal interaction with a small number of people takes well-defined rules and procedures as well as the awareness of the importance of integrating mechanisms. Culture, encompassing the military organizational culture as well as the so-called ‘national culture’, undeniably has a substantial impact on the relations within a given multinational operation. Within the cultural framework, the common language or lingua franca deserves special attention.

Towards Cultural Integration in Multinational Peace Operations

Multinational cooperation in military action is not really new. During the Napoleonic Wars as well as World Wars I and II, allied forces from various countries fought their way side by side against...

Compliance with International Humanitarian Law in Multinational Peace Operations

AbstractThe duty to respect international humanitarian law (IHL) in military operations requires effective tools of compliance. Peace operation forces are seldom involved in armed conflict and IHL applies formally only in a minorityof operations. The increasingly volatile environments in which peace operation personnel are required to work, and the trend of enforcement capabilities of such forces, will arguably make the question of compliance with IHL all the more important. Multinational peace operations often include a range of actors–such as the UN, another organisation leading the operation, troop contributing nations (TCNs) and the host state. Differences in training and education as well implementation of IHL in different TCNs makes compliance with IHL in multinational operations a challenging task. The use of special units with their culture of secrecy involves other complex questions. On a more general level, it is not clearly established how responsibility under international is dividedamong the main actors in a multinational peace operation. A number of practical measures are suggested to overcome challenges to an effective compliance of IHL.

Application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to UN-mandated forces: Report on the Expert meeting on multinational peace operations

Application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law to UN-mandated forces: Report on the Expert meeting on multinational peace operations

Strategic trends in Asia

(1996). Strategic trends in Asia. Small Wars & Insurgencies: Vol. 7, The Role of Special Forces in Multinational Peace Operations, pp. 79-84.

Special operations in conflict resolution: Operational capabilities versus political constraints

(1996). Special operations in conflict resolution: Operational capabilities versus political constraints. Small Wars & Insurgencies: Vol. 7, The Role of Special Forces in Multinational Peace Operations, pp. 35-40.