The United Nations and peacekeeping, 1988–95

By Chen Kertcher

Using more than 600 UN documents that analyse the discussions in the UN Security Council, General Assembly and Secretariat, The United Nations and peacekeeping, 1988-95 presents innovative explanations on how after the Cold War UN peacekeeping operations became the dominant response to conflicts around the globe.

This study offers a vivid description of these changes through the analysis of the evolution in the concept and practice of United Nations peacekeeping operations from 1988 to 1995. The research is anchored primarily in United Nations documents, which were produced following the diplomatic discussions that took place in the General Assembly, the Security Council and the UN Secretariat on the subject of peacekeeping in general and in the cases of Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia and Somalia in particular. These large and complex operations were the testing ground for the new roles of peacekeeping in democratisation, humanitarian aid, resettlement of refugees, demobilisation of armed forces, economic development and advancement of good government.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Release date: Jun 17, 2016
• ISBN: 9781526100344

Book preview

The United Nations and peacekeeping, 1988–95

Image:logo is missing

The United Nations and peacekeeping, 1988–95

Chen Kertcher

Manchester University Press

Copyright © Chen Kertcher 2016

The right of Chen Kertcher to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by Manchester University Press

Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA

www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for

ISBN 978 1 7849 9273 6 hardback

First published 2016

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Typeset by Out of House Publishing

Contents

Acknowledgements

List of abbreviations

Introduction

1A history of UN peacekeeping

2New thinking: UN peacekeeping and the end of the Cold War 1988–91

3Agenda for peacekeeping 1992–93

4The failure of peacekeeping as a panacea to civil wars 1993–95

Conclusion

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

This work represents several years of sculpting a manuscript out of a huge marble made of thousands of UN pages.

Above all, I owe special gratitude to Prof. Aron Shai, who challenged me to deal with such a large and ambitious project on a global scale.

The tedious and exhausting work mentally, intellectually and sometimes physically would not have been possible without the support, advice and guidance of the following people: Dr. Efrat Elron, Prof. Elie Barnavi, Prof. James Gow, Prof. Arie Kacowitz, Prof. Billie Melman, M. Des. Willy Mizrahi, Dr. Shimon Naveh, Prof. Benni Neuberger, Prof. Iris Rahamimov, Prof. Raanan Rein, Prof. Galia Golan and Prof. Moti Tamarkin. There are many more, but unfortunately space prevents me from naming all of them.

Special thanks are reserved for the archivists at the UN archives in New York and the UN deposit library at the National Library in Jerusalem.

This work was sponsored by the generous funding of the Israeli Council for Higher Education Rotenstreich Fellowship, a research scholarship from the Tami Steinmetz Peace Center at Tel Aviv University and my time as a junior fellow at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for International and Regional Studies at Tel Aviv University.

My parents, Yosi and Ruti, and my brother, Zack, were a fountain of faith in my work.

Last but not least, I owe apologies and gratitude to my dear wife, Hagar, and our three daughters, who had to bear my endless remarks on the UN and peacekeeping, and still encouraged me to continue. This book is dedicated to them.

Abbreviations

Organisations and agencies

Cambodia

Former Yugoslavia

Somalia

Introduction

Between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, there was a major shift in the position of the United Nations in the world. After the organisation had been shunted aside for most of the Cold War years, it returned to enjoy international centre stage; the large, multifunctional peacekeeping operations were catalysts in this process. The organisation’s member states mobilised themselves to promote those initiatives that encouraged both political arrangements and other political, economic and security measures – such as humanitarian aid, resettlement of refugees, demobilisation of armed forces, economic development and advancement of good government – in order to resolve active conflicts using these tools. Simultaneously, intensive discussion was held between the member states and United Nations institutions regarding the potential of these operations.

This global history study examines the concept and practice of United Nations peacekeeping operations from 1988 to 1995. The research is anchored primarily in United Nations documents produced following the diplomatic discussions that took place in the organisation on the subject of peacekeeping in general and in the cases of Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia in particular. Studies on peacekeeping operations tend to overlook the importance of the diplomatic discussions that occurred, and are still occurring, at the United Nations. In this study I chose to examine these discussions in order to uncover the routine realignment of members in political groups that worked on different issues of peacekeeping and thus to offer different explanations from the ones that are usually given on the motivation for executing peacekeeping operations, the way they were executed, and their outcomes in different regions and on the work of the United Nations.

There is a wide consensus in the peacekeeping operations literature that there were two types of United Nations peacekeeping operations, based on the time of their execution: ‘traditional operations’ and ‘multidimensional operations’.

Operations of the ‘first generation’, sometimes termed ‘traditional’, were executed during the Cold War, from 1947 to 1987. These operations were limited in their objectives and size. Their main aim was to prevent escalation in interstate conflicts through the deployment of peacekeeping forces as a buffer between the belligerent armed forces. During their deployment, the United Nations forces investigated and reported breaches of ceasefire agreements. The aim of this technique was to assist ongoing international mediation efforts in order to resolve the conflict. The principles of success of these operations were to gain the support of international and local actors, to be impartial and under no circumstances to use force. In total, the United Nations deployed thirteen operations during this period. This mode of action focuses on the prevention of wars between states and not on the initiation of actions that could prevent the development of conditions for conflict.

According to most of the peacekeeping research literature, ‘second-generation’ operations have been executed since 1988 and they continue to this day. These studies highlight the fact that from 1988 to 2014 the Security Council authorised fifty-six new peacekeeping operations, four times the number of operations that were deployed during the Cold War. Furthermore, the number of personnel involved in these operations has risen to more than one hundred thousand troops, policemen and civilians. The cost of the operations rose in parallel, from less than half a billion dollars in the late 1980s to approximately seven billion dollars during 2014.

Another argument is that Cold War era peacekeeping operations differ from later operations not only in their numbers and size, but also in their objectives, which in the latter included interventions on political, security, economic and social levels during an active conflict inside states. Thus sometimes terms such as ‘multidimensional’ or multifunctional operations are used to define the second generation of peacekeeping operations. They emphasise that these operations are characterised by multiple objectives, such as democratisation, building new national security institutions, providing humanitarian assistance and the advancement of human rights. Their main goal is to end intrastate conflicts through these multiple functions. Others prefer to view these operations as supporting the basic foundations for the maintenance of peace.¹

Literature which supports the dichotomy between the two periods, from 1947 to 1987 and from 1988 until today, tends to conclude that a fundamental change occurred in the way international politics was practised at the United Nations in the context of peacekeeping operations after the Cold War. According to many studies, the end of the Cold War created two major political alliances in the organisation. The first alliance represents the developing states and is led by China and Russia; it supports the execution of traditional operations. The second and more dominant alliance represents the Western states, led by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Canada. This alliance pushed for a change in the concept of traditional peacekeeping operations in order to intervene in intrastate conflicts while promoting democratisation, human rights, economic development, etc.

Reviewing the scope of peacekeeping operations from 1988 onwards reveals that it is divided into three periods. The first period, from 1988 to 1995, was the crucial period of transformation. Between 1988 and 1995, the period examined by this work, the Security Council decided on the deployment of twenty-six new operations, half the number of operations that were deployed after the Cold War. Furthermore, the number of peacekeepers rose from a low of 15,390 at the end of 1991 to a high of 80,000 in 1994. The cost of the operations rose in parallel, from approximately half a billion dollars in 1991 to 3.5 billion dollars three years later. Most of these changes are connected to the execution of three large missions in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia.

The United Nations operations in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia were executed in order to achieve multiple objectives, such as supervising demobilisation processes, monitoring ceasefires, delivering aid, monitoring civilian institutions and advancing human rights. During the time of execution they were perceived in the United Nations deliberations as the main test cases for the implementation of new concepts and principles in peacekeeping. In this sense, they represent the best cases for the examination of the will of the international community to intervene in intrastate conflicts in order to end conflicts in this period.

The results of these operations are questioned. Although conventional wisdom holds that the intervention in Cambodia was successful, the intervention in the former Yugoslavia was a partial success and the intervention in Somalia was a failure. In the case of Cambodia, the Security Council decided to terminate the operation in mid-1993, after the United Nations had managed an election that resulted in the formation of a new government by the two biggest political parties. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, it was decided in December 1995 to transfer many of the operation’s powers to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) after the belligerent parties in Bosnia signed a peace agreement. In the case of Somalia, it was decided to end the operation in March 1995 although the conflict continued.

In 1995 the number and size of peacekeeping operations started to decline until it reach a low of approximately 12,000 soldiers in mid-1999. In June 1999 the tide turned again when the Security Council decided to deploy operations in East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The number and size of peacekeeping operations continued to rise after 2001, with most of the new operations deployed in Africa. Moreover, the period after 2001 is also characterised by the subcontracting of large, multidimensional operations to regional organisations such as NATO and the African Union.

The brief review leads to a conclusion that the period of 1988 to 1995 was a transformative period in the history of United Nations peacekeeping and that something undermined the international support for these operations. Researchers such as Alex Bellamy, Paul Griffin, Stewart Williams and Adam Roberts raise several possible reasons for this. These researchers argue that the main cause for the drop in support for multidimensional operations in the mid-1990s is connected to three humiliating failures of the UN: the political crisis that erupted in Somalia after the fighting in Mogadishu between the UN forces and one of the Somali factions, on 3 October 1993; the inaction of the UN in light of the genocide in Rwanda between April and July 1994; and the pullback of UN forces from Srebrenica in July 1995 that allowed Bosnian-Serbian forces to kill thousands of Muslim youths and men. Additional reasons given by the researchers for scepticism regarding the operations were the unwillingness of UN member states to donate sufficient resources, human as well as material; the fact that most of the soldiers were poorly equipped and sometimes lacked weapons and means of transportation; and inadequate coordination between the various units on the ground. In addition, the budgets for financing operations arrived so late that the organisation was forced to take out bank loans. Another cause is that the UN Secretariat did not have appropriate organisational means to conduct so many large, multidimensional operations simultaneously.²

However, when we examine these research arguments in comparison with their explanations regarding the reasons for the change that took place in operations from 1988 to 1995, we reveal several contradictions. For example, it is argued that the end of the Cold War contributed to the resolving of disputes and served as a catalyst for the proper functioning of the Security Council. However, the facts show that numerous existing conflicts continued to develop after the end of the Cold War and new ones were even created. Also, one of the reasons given for the development of peacekeeping operations is that countries ostensibly wanted to contribute to the operations in order to increase their influence in the region or in the UN, and to increase their income. However, this is contradicted by the fact that countries were not willing to invest enough of their resources for the proper execution of the operations. And if we assume that Western countries were eager to promote new democratic norms in the various disputed sites, we have to ask why they were unwilling to invest sufficient resources to accomplish this goal. Finally, the managerial-organisational-logistical problems involved in the execution of the operations had existed in the Cold War period as well; they were not new to the post-Cold War period. The important question is whether the organisation made any changes in order to deal with these problems. This study deals with those issues that have not been sufficiently addressed previously. Because the international political context of the early 1990s was different from that of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the manuscript limits itself to the transformative period that was terminated in 1995.

The changes that occurred to the concept and the execution of peacekeeping operations after the Cold War raise several questions: To what extent do these interventions represent a fundamental change in the international politics at the United Nations regarding the management of conflicts after the Cold War? Were these interventions a result of ‘new politics’ in the United Nations which Western states supported and advanced against the policies of developing countries?

This research demonstrates, using the records of diplomatic discourse at the United Nations, that although there was an attempt to change the concept and principles of peacekeeping operations and with it to launch an organisational reform, it eventually failed. The international politics at the United Nations could not reconcile the tension between the forces of global reform and those that advanced narrow national interests. The best explanation for this outcome is that international politics at the United Nations – at least as it concerns peacekeeping operations – is conducted according to the principles of each state’s realpolitik. States formed their stance on a case-by-case basis, while calculating power relations in order to advance their own national interests. Therefore their position on each topic on the concept of the operation or on organisational reform did not necessarily match the declared position of any particular political alliance. Furthermore, many multidimensional operations were still executed in accordance with the traditional concept. The main objective of these operations was international mediation between belligerent sides in order to form sovereign governments and to deploy a ‘peacekeeping force’ in accordance with the traditional principles of international and local consent, impartiality and the non-use of force. Traditional objectives were preferred over new objectives such as democratisation, human rights and economic development.

The theoretical framework and research design

Since the last decade of the twentieth century, hundreds of books and articles have been published on the subject of peacekeeping operations. There is a lively academic community exploring questions concerning peacekeeping. Research in the field discusses diverse issues that cannot be reviewed here in detail. However, peacekeeping scholars can be broadly categorised into six clusters: regional studies, country studies, functions and objectives studies, international law studies, organisational studies and generational-historical studies.

The first and second clusters, which are the largest in the field, are of regional studies. These studies discuss a conflict in a particular region or the decision-making process in a specific state that is involved in the peacekeeping operation. Many of these studies describe UN actions in a specific region in detail, while trying to reach conclusions about how the operations contributed to the solution of a conflict. A different way is to assess the role of one country in an intervention.³

The third cluster of studies includes comparative analysis of the operations’ objectives and their functions in a particular conflict. These studies tend to focus on one objective and compare the methods for its achievement in several operations. Therefore, there are many studies on international mediation, humanitarian assistance and enforcement action.

A fourth cluster of studies on peacekeeping operations is related to international law. These studies usually try to evaluate whether the operations were applied, developed or deployed in accordance with the norms of international law. This research tends to make comparisons between accepted interpretations of the norms of international law and the practice of the United Nations. For example, cases of massive breaches of human rights are evaluated in light of international law.

The fifth cluster is organisational studies. Researchers in this field try to explain how the concept of peacekeeping was transformed by reviewing the interplay of politics and the organisation.

The last cluster, which I call historical-generational studies, includes studies which try to explain the changes in the concept and practice of peacekeeping from their first use in 1947 to the present day. These studies deal with the impact of international politics on the execution of peacekeeping operations in the last seven decades, while trying to characterise the uniqueness of each period in the history of UN operations. The main emphasis is on support or rejection by the international community of the use of such operations.

Overall, the six clusters studying peacekeeping do not give much attention to the historical evolution of peacekeeping operations within the UN in the crucial period that this work analyses. Students of regional studies tend to emphasise the importance of the interests of specific states or specific interventions that they review, without providing the proper context of the discussions that went on in the UN on the operations. The result tends to neglect the wider global historical context of the operation.

Studies that compare specific objectives between different operations tend to emphasise a specific function in the operation beyond the original intentions of the United Nations personnel or the persons who were responsible for the planning and the execution of the operations.⁴

International law studies tend to give greater weight to the development of international law at the expense of the practice, but fail to mention that many of these cases grew out of a political activity within the UN.⁵

While pointing to organisational deficiencies, studies on the work of the UN organisation in relation to peacekeeping fail to explain how the concept of peacekeeping evolved in the organisation during the period analysed in this work. They also choose certain aspects that they think are most important for the discussion and avoid using the UN structural and organisational preferences in its work on peacekeeping.⁶

Finally, historical-generational studies, which strive to review the historical change in the concept and practice of peacekeeping operations, mainly draw their conclusions from secondary sources and neglect to analyse the discussions within the UN.⁷ As a result, although our knowledge on the potential use of peacekeeping as a conflict management and resolution measure is improving, neglecting to understand the internal evolution of peacekeeping may lead research in inaccurate directions. The review of analytical frameworks for the study of peacekeeping shows that there is no sufficient explanation of how peacekeeping was transformed from 1988 and why the support of this transformation wavered in 1995. In order to fill the lacuna in our knowledge, Benner, Mergenthaler and Rotmann acknowledge in their study on organisational reform in the early twenty-first century that there is a need to zoom in and out from the organisation process to adopt comparative cases not only between operations but between different issues in management and organisational level. Michael Barnett and others support this argument by claiming that the main problem in peacekeeping lies in the lack of a clear concept and operationalisation in peacekeeping operations.⁸

In this study I challenge the accepted notion in the field of peacekeeping that operations executed by the United Nations until 1987 and those executed from 1988 to 1995 differ significantly in all their aspects. As far as I know, there is no research on the discussions that took place at the United Nations in this period on the concept of peacekeeping and organisational reform, or a comparison between these discussions and the execution of the major operations at the time, in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. In order to shed light on the processes that took place in the United Nations organisation, this work adopts historical methodology through the analysis of the diplomatic discussions. It covers more than 600 official UN documents that reveal the interrelations between the discussions on the principles of peacekeeping and organisational reform and the practice of executing such operations in the field. As I demonstrate in the study, the examination of these discussions draws a different picture from the one that is usually depicted.

Diplomatic discussions at the United Nations took place in the three central bodies of the United Nations – the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat.⁹ In the Security Council there were discussions on the concept of the operations and their execution in different conflict areas of the world. Scholars of peacekeeping usually point to the important role of the Security Council in the decision-making process.¹⁰ However, even prominent scholars such as Mats Berdal, who has written a lot on the subject, do not compare the work of the Security Council on the concept of peacekeeping with its decisions on different peacekeeping missions.¹¹ This study analyses the positions of the member states in the Council. A special focus is given to the policies of the privileged Permanent Five (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States). The corpus of sources includes different speeches, resolutions, draft resolutions, statements of different speakers, official statements of the presidents of the Security Council and different letters and reports submitted to the Council from 1988 to 1995. The focus will be on the documents produced in connection with the work of the Council on the three largest operations of that period. It also covers all Security Council documents that relate to the principles of peacekeeping. In general, all UN documents that are related to the work of the Council receive the official symbol S/.

Most studies on peacekeeping missions use Security Council documents. The work on peacekeeping in the General Assembly in that period is generally overlooked.¹² During discussions that took place at the General Assembly, many states’ representatives expressed their government’s views and positions on the concept and practice of the operations. The main body in the General Assembly which was responsible for developing the concept of peacekeeping was the Special Committee for Peacekeeping Operations (SCPKO) founded in 1965 (UN symbol A/AC.121). However, there were other discussions in different forums of the General Assembly such as the Special Political Committee (UN symbol A/SPC/) the Fourth (de-colonisation) Committee (UN symbol A/C.4) and the Fifth Committee. In 1994 it was decided to unite the Special Political Committee and the Fourth Committee. Therefore the discussions of the Fourth Committee from 8 February 1994 received the UN symbol A/C.4/48/SR.23. Although encompassing the official view of dozens of member states on the changes in objectives, principles, management, organisational and logistical aspects of peacekeeping, these discussions have been overlooked by writers who cover this period. The protocols of dozens of these discussions help to trace the formal and unique positions on the concept of the operations and their practice in every case.

The final major player in the politics of the UN on peacekeeping is the Secretariat. It has played an active part in all of the discussions that took place in the Security Council and the General Assembly. As noted recently by writers on the role of the Secretariat, it has the power to influence countries and policies, but it is also influenced by international politics.¹³

In order to simplify the reference of each document, which sometimes includes two or three lines, I have decided to quote in this book only the official symbols used by the UN with the date of its publication. For the complete UN reference list the reader should use http://research.un.org.

Taken together, the scope of United Nations sources reveals the arguments and justifications which diplomats and Secretariat personnel raised on each issue. Meticulous reading of these primary documents allows the researcher to map the different alliances that were formed on each subject and action. It helps to identify what processes gained support and from whom and what processes were cut short and why.

In addition to the corpus of UN primary sources, this study is based on other sources, such as diplomatic correspondence, which includes official governmental exchange of letters, professional reports to the organisation on the concept and practice of different operations, and published official literature such as the United Nations’ periodicals and yearbooks. A different corpus of sources is the official documents of states which had specific influence on a particular peacekeeping operation.

The outline of the book

Chapter 1: A history of UN peacekeeping offers a brief review of United Nations peacekeeping operations from 1947 to 2014. The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it puts the current work in its historical context within the wider background of the discussion on the history of peacekeeping and the main UN bodies who influence peacekeeping, the Security Council, the General Assembly and the UN Secretariat. Second, it reviews the main conceptual differences between ‘first-generation’ and ‘second-generation’ peacekeeping operations as they are usually represented by studies in the field. This chapter provides the reader with the main terms that are used throughout this work.

Chapter 2: New thinking: UN peacekeeping and the end of the Cold War 1988–91 examines international politics at the United Nations from 1988 to 1991 (when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) dissolved), and challenges the accepted premises concerning the change in the objectives and principles of success in peacekeeping operations at the time. The chapter is divided into three parts: the discussions on the concept of peacekeeping at the United Nations and the objectives that were given to ten new peacekeeping operations from 1988 to 1991; the main focus of the discussion will be on the execution of the transitional-type mission in Cambodia.

Chapter 3: Agenda for peacekeeping 1992–93 examines the diplomatic discussions at the Security Council, the General Assembly and the UN Secretariat on the objectives and principles of success of the operations from January 1992 to mid-1993. During this time period, it was proposed to change the objectives and principles of the operations. At the time, most member states supported the new initiatives to use large, multidimensional peacekeeping operations in order to manage and end civil wars.

During this time, the Security Council decided to execute three large multidimensional operations to maintain global security. In Cambodia it developed a new model for an international transitional administration. In the former Yugoslavia it developed a model for humanitarian intervention. Finally, in Somalia, faced with the challenge of a collapsed state, it developed the model of state-building. Furthermore, the chapter concludes that in most cases, the United Nations continued to work according to the peacekeeping operations’ Cold War principles of execution – it emphasised consent, non-use of force and impartiality – and strived to achieve mainly traditional objectives.

Chapter 4: The failure of peacekeeping as a panacea to civil wars 1993–95, offers new explanations for the dwindling support for UN peacekeeping operations from late 1993 to 1995. The discussions on the concept of the ambitious multidimensional operations and their practice created tensions between member states. The chapter reveals that international politics at the United Nations had unique characteristics with regard to each of the conflicts that did not necessarily correlate with the efforts by certain alliances in the organisation to agree on a new concept for peacekeeping operations. By 1995, UN members had failed to reconcile their differences on the concept and practice of multidimensional peacekeeping as a panacea to civil wars. The organisation was in political and financial crisis and mistrust was widespread among the member states. Therefore, most member states declared their resolve to support the traditional objectives and principles of peacekeeping. Moreover, it was recommended that future multidimensional operations would be executed by regional organisations.

The final chapter concludes the main arguments of the book. It summarises the political grouping that was formed in the organisation on each subject from 1988 to 1995. It shows how international politics was interlocked in routine realignment, which formed the basis for the transformation of the role of peacekeeping operations in conflict zones but also failed to reconcile many issues that are still relevant in the twenty-first century.

Notes

1 For a review of the literature see below and in Chapter 1 .

2 An elaboration of the accepted research argument regarding the backtracking from the execution of multidimensional operations can be found in: A. Bellamy, P. Williams and S. Griffin, Understanding Peacekeeping (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2nd edn, 2010), pp. 93–111; A. Roberts, ‘The Crisis in UN Peacekeeping’, in C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. Aall (eds), Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict (Washinton, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996), pp. 297–319. For a more nuanced explanation for the transformation of UN peacekeeping during the early 1990s, see: J. T. O’Neill and N. Rees, United Nations Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2005).

3 For an example of studies on national interests of states for participating in peacekeeping operations or for regions in which such operations were executed see: A. Adebajo, UN Peacekeeping in Africa: From the Suez Crisis to the Sudan Conflict (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2011); S. Autesserre, The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding (Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press, 2010); W. J. Durch (ed.), The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping: Case Studies and Comparative Analysis (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993); W. J. Durch (ed.), UN Peacekeeping, American Policy and the Uncivil Wars of the 1990s (London: Macmillan, 1997); J. Mayall (ed.), The New Interventionism, 1991–1994: United Nations Experience in Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia, and Somalia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996); L. G. Murray, Clinton, Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention: Rise and Fall of a Policy (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2008); O’Neill and Rees, United Nations Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era ; D. S. Sorenson and P. C. Wood (eds), The Politics of Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era (London: Frank Cass, 2005); T. G. Weiss, The United Nations and Civil Wars (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1995).

4 C. T. Call and V. Wyeth (eds), Building States to Build Peace (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008); R. Caplan (ed.), Exit Strategies and State Building (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); P. F. Diehl, D. Druckman and J. Wall, ‘International Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution: A Taxonomic Analysis with Implications’, The