By all necessary means? Emerging powers and the use of force in peacekeeping

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Contemporary Security Policy Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691
Rafael Duarte Villa, N. Jenne
{"title":"By all necessary means? Emerging powers and the use of force in peacekeeping","authors":"Rafael Duarte Villa, N. Jenne","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Emerging powers from the global south have generally opposed the use of force in international politics. However, taking a closer look at the area of peacekeeping, the international community’s most institutionalized response to international insecurity, it is clear that the global south has been actively engaged in what has been described as peacekeeping’s coercive turn: the increasingly greater use of force. Building on the cases of Brazil and Indonesia, we argue that the peacekeeping policies of these emerging powers have been inconsistent with their declared reticence to use force. We explain the inconsistency by reference to knowledge imbalances between civilian and military actors, a gap in peacekeeping expertise and involvement in policy-making that allowed the armed forces to push the two countries into increasingly coercive peacekeeping. Moreover, civil–military knowledge imbalances prevented the emergence of alternative ideas more in line with Brazil’s and Indonesia’s traditional stance on the use of force.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"407 - 431"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Security Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1698691","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: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT Emerging powers from the global south have generally opposed the use of force in international politics. However, taking a closer look at the area of peacekeeping, the international community’s most institutionalized response to international insecurity, it is clear that the global south has been actively engaged in what has been described as peacekeeping’s coercive turn: the increasingly greater use of force. Building on the cases of Brazil and Indonesia, we argue that the peacekeeping policies of these emerging powers have been inconsistent with their declared reticence to use force. We explain the inconsistency by reference to knowledge imbalances between civilian and military actors, a gap in peacekeeping expertise and involvement in policy-making that allowed the armed forces to push the two countries into increasingly coercive peacekeeping. Moreover, civil–military knowledge imbalances prevented the emergence of alternative ideas more in line with Brazil’s and Indonesia’s traditional stance on the use of force.
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
尽一切必要的手段?新兴大国和在维和行动中使用武力
来自全球南方的新兴大国普遍反对在国际政治中使用武力。然而,仔细观察国际社会对国际不安全最制度化的反应——维持和平领域,很明显,全球南方国家一直在积极参与所谓的维持和平的强制性转向:越来越多地使用武力。基于巴西和印度尼西亚的案例,我们认为这些新兴大国的维和政策与他们宣称的不使用武力是不一致的。我们通过参考民事和军事行为者之间的知识失衡、维和专业知识和参与决策的差距来解释这种不一致,这使得武装部队将两国推向越来越强制性的维和行动。此外,军民知识的不平衡阻碍了更符合巴西和印度尼西亚在使用武力问题上的传统立场的替代想法的出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: One of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in international conflict and security, Contemporary Security Policy promotes theoretically-based research on policy problems of armed conflict, intervention and conflict resolution. Since it first appeared in 1980, CSP has established its unique place as a meeting ground for research at the nexus of theory and policy. Spanning the gap between academic and policy approaches, CSP offers policy analysts a place to pursue fundamental issues, and academic writers a venue for addressing policy. Major fields of concern include: War and armed conflict Peacekeeping Conflict resolution Arms control and disarmament Defense policy Strategic culture International institutions. CSP is committed to a broad range of intellectual perspectives. Articles promote new analytical approaches, iconoclastic interpretations and previously overlooked perspectives. Its pages encourage novel contributions and outlooks, not particular methodologies or policy goals. Its geographical scope is worldwide and includes security challenges in Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and Asia. Authors are encouraged to examine established priorities in innovative ways and to apply traditional methods to new problems.
期刊最新文献
The last atomic Waltz: China’s nuclear expansion and the persisting relevance of the theory of the nuclear revolution The 2024 Bernard Brodie Prize The pervasive informality of the international cybersecurity regime: Geopolitics, non-state actors and diplomacy Message from the incoming editors Crypto-Atlanticism: The untold preferences of policy elites in neutral and non-aligned states
×
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