Loading...
Peacekeeping Operations: Humanitarianism or Politics as Usual?
Smith, Sarah
Smith, Sarah
Citations
Altmetric:
Contributor
Photographer
Author
Artist
Editor
Advisor
Keywords
Text, Honors papers, International Studies, Department of, Student research
Local ID
Collections
Abstract
After the Cold War, International Organizations (IOs) have become the guardians of
international peace and security, in charge of creating and maintaining peace in conflicts
that are, for the most part, internal. Current research, however, focuses on why states
intervene through the auspices of IOs. Research on why IOs themselves intervene in
these conflicts, therefore, is largely lacking. This paper thus analyzes the factors that lead
to the decision by IOs to establish peacekeeping operations (PKOs). In order to determine
whether or not the decision is based on a consequential rationality or based on an IO’s
identity and role in society, the research questions is framed by using the logic of
expected consequences versus the logic of appropriateness debate. This paper looks in
particular at the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) PKOs in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (MONUC in 1999 and Operation Artémis in 2003, respectively)
and the EU intervention, Operation Concordia (2003), in the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia (FYROM). The findings reveal that security and economic interests play a
large role in influencing an IOs decision to intervene by framing the way in which IOs
deal with humanitarian crises and human rights situations in a conflict. In the end, IO’s
base the decision to intervene on a cost-benefit analysis: if the costs of intervention
outweigh the benefits, intervention will not take place. If, however, the costs outweigh
the benefits of non-intervention, intervention is more likely to take place.
Description
Sarah Smith granted permission for the digitization of this paper. It was submitted by CD.