“Peacekeeping Proneness”: Which Type of International System Is Most Likely to Enhance the Supply of Peacekeepers?

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1093/isq/sqae151
Philip Cunliffe
{"title":"“Peacekeeping Proneness”: Which Type of International System Is Most Likely to Enhance the Supply of Peacekeepers?","authors":"Philip Cunliffe","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s The Russian invasion of Ukraine has escalated geopolitical rivalry and debate about the demise of the liberal international order and the changing distribution of power within the international system. Peacekeeping has been a key component of the liberal international order at least since the end of the Cold War, if not before. Peacekeeping boomed in the era of US unipolarity, with twenty new United Nations (UN) operations alone launched between 1989 and 1994. At the time of writing, c. 60,000 blue helmets are deployed around the world, and a peacekeeping operation is being mooted for postwar Gaza. Given the growing geopolitical rivalry between East and West, a relative erosion of US power, and much talk of a new age of multipolarity, where does this leave peace operations and peacekeeping? This paper explores the impact of different distributions of power in the international system (namely, multipolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity) on peace operations. The paper goes through relevant military interventions beginning with the post-1815 Congress system and reaching up to the present day. The paper shows that a multipolar distribution of power is most propitious for the global deployment of peacekeepers, and suggests that peace operations may in future express international cooperation more than unipolar power.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"549 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae151","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

s The Russian invasion of Ukraine has escalated geopolitical rivalry and debate about the demise of the liberal international order and the changing distribution of power within the international system. Peacekeeping has been a key component of the liberal international order at least since the end of the Cold War, if not before. Peacekeeping boomed in the era of US unipolarity, with twenty new United Nations (UN) operations alone launched between 1989 and 1994. At the time of writing, c. 60,000 blue helmets are deployed around the world, and a peacekeeping operation is being mooted for postwar Gaza. Given the growing geopolitical rivalry between East and West, a relative erosion of US power, and much talk of a new age of multipolarity, where does this leave peace operations and peacekeeping? This paper explores the impact of different distributions of power in the international system (namely, multipolarity, bipolarity, and unipolarity) on peace operations. The paper goes through relevant military interventions beginning with the post-1815 Congress system and reaching up to the present day. The paper shows that a multipolar distribution of power is most propitious for the global deployment of peacekeepers, and suggests that peace operations may in future express international cooperation more than unipolar power.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.
期刊最新文献
Entangled Narratives: Insights from Social and Computer Sciences on National Artificial Intelligence Infrastructures “Peacekeeping Proneness”: Which Type of International System Is Most Likely to Enhance the Supply of Peacekeepers? Who Reviews Whom, Where, and Why? Evidence from the Peer Review Process of the OECD Development Assistance Committee Can States Be Interviewed? Moving the Needle: Recommendation Precision and Compliance with Women’s Rights Recommendations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1