Whether by reducing conflict, protecting civilians, or helping belligerents reach peace agreements, modern UN peacekeeping missions have much to offer. However, in a world of increasingly complex threats – from the effects of climate change to the illegal exploitation of natural resources – peacekeeping is no longer solely a matter of creating space for peace processes to work. Instead, they are required to confront some of the primary drivers of armed violence, including identity-driven militias, criminal gangs and transnational jihadist insurgents.
The effectiveness of a peacekeeping mission depends on its mandate, which varies from narrow and limited in scope (such as ceasefire monitoring) to broad and ambitious undertakings (like overhauling a national government). In addition, the scale of a peacekeeping operation is a key factor: studies indicate that larger missions are more effective than smaller ones at reducing violence between combatants.
Given the wide range of challenges, it’s no surprise that the theory and practice of peacekeeping has changed dramatically since its first Cold War deployments. The scope and scale of these operations has shifted from the largely limited “observer” missions to a diverse range of more comprehensive deployments, from African-led operations like AMISOM in Somalia to regional initiatives such as SADC forces in DRC, and ad hoc initiatives ranging from hunting the Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa to assisting countries prepare for elections and other reforms. But it’s not just the nature of peacekeeping that has shifted; its political context has also changed.