维和能减少暴力吗?评估当代非洲和平行动的综合安全

IF 0.6 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Stability-International Journal of Security and Development Pub Date : 2018-03-26 DOI:10.5334/STA.576
M. Brosig, Norman Sempijja
{"title":"维和能减少暴力吗?评估当代非洲和平行动的综合安全","authors":"M. Brosig, Norman Sempijja","doi":"10.5334/STA.576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quantitative research evaluating the effect of peacekeeping operations usually links conflict abatement to the number of casualties in order to measure mission success. Such an approach is incomplete as security concerns extend far beyond the number of conflict related deaths. This narrow understanding of mission success leaves a significant assessment gap. Therefore this study is the first which presents comprehensive data using a wider understanding of violence and peace. We apply 11 indicators measuring security comprehensively. These range from the number of battle death, to violence against civilians, domestic unrest as well as domestic governance and political stability. In contrast to the mainstream quantitative literature our analysis shows that conflict often persists even with the deployment of peacekeepers. The absence of war (decline of battle death) does not automatically equate for non-violence and peace. In order to explain variation between cases we are also exploring the significance of different peacekeeping types, the size of developmental aid, rents from natural resources and the role of governance on conflict.","PeriodicalId":44806,"journal":{"name":"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development","volume":"6 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Peacekeeping Reduce Violence? Assessing Comprehensive Security of Contemporary Peace Operations in Africa\",\"authors\":\"M. Brosig, Norman Sempijja\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/STA.576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Quantitative research evaluating the effect of peacekeeping operations usually links conflict abatement to the number of casualties in order to measure mission success. Such an approach is incomplete as security concerns extend far beyond the number of conflict related deaths. This narrow understanding of mission success leaves a significant assessment gap. Therefore this study is the first which presents comprehensive data using a wider understanding of violence and peace. We apply 11 indicators measuring security comprehensively. These range from the number of battle death, to violence against civilians, domestic unrest as well as domestic governance and political stability. In contrast to the mainstream quantitative literature our analysis shows that conflict often persists even with the deployment of peacekeepers. The absence of war (decline of battle death) does not automatically equate for non-violence and peace. In order to explain variation between cases we are also exploring the significance of different peacekeeping types, the size of developmental aid, rents from natural resources and the role of governance on conflict.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development\",\"volume\":\"6 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/STA.576\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stability-International Journal of Security and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/STA.576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

评估维持和平行动效果的定量研究通常将冲突的减少与伤亡人数联系起来,以衡量特派团的成功。这种做法是不完整的,因为安全问题远远超出了与冲突有关的死亡人数。这种对任务成功的狭隘理解留下了重大的评估差距。因此,这项研究是第一个利用对暴力与和平的更广泛理解提供全面数据的研究。我们综合运用了11个衡量安全的指标。这些因素包括战斗死亡人数、针对平民的暴力行为、国内动乱以及国内治理和政治稳定。与主流定量文献相反,我们的分析表明,即使部署了维和人员,冲突也往往持续存在。没有战争(战争死亡人数减少)并不自动等同于非暴力与和平。为了解释不同情况之间的差异,我们还探讨了不同维和类型的重要性、发展援助的规模、自然资源的租金以及治理在冲突中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does Peacekeeping Reduce Violence? Assessing Comprehensive Security of Contemporary Peace Operations in Africa
Quantitative research evaluating the effect of peacekeeping operations usually links conflict abatement to the number of casualties in order to measure mission success. Such an approach is incomplete as security concerns extend far beyond the number of conflict related deaths. This narrow understanding of mission success leaves a significant assessment gap. Therefore this study is the first which presents comprehensive data using a wider understanding of violence and peace. We apply 11 indicators measuring security comprehensively. These range from the number of battle death, to violence against civilians, domestic unrest as well as domestic governance and political stability. In contrast to the mainstream quantitative literature our analysis shows that conflict often persists even with the deployment of peacekeepers. The absence of war (decline of battle death) does not automatically equate for non-violence and peace. In order to explain variation between cases we are also exploring the significance of different peacekeeping types, the size of developmental aid, rents from natural resources and the role of governance on conflict.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Stability: International Journal of Security & Development is a fundamentally new kind of journal. Open-access, it publishes research quickly and free of charge in order to have a maximal impact upon policy and practice communities. It fills a crucial niche. Despite the allocation of significant policy attention and financial resources to a perceived relationship between development assistance, security and stability, a solid evidence base is still lacking. Research in this area, while growing rapidly, is scattered across journals focused upon broader topics such as international development, international relations and security studies. Accordingly, Stability''s objective is to: Foster an accessible and rigorous evidence base, clearly communicated and widely disseminated, to guide future thinking, policymaking and practice concerning communities and states experiencing widespread violence and conflict. The journal will accept submissions from a wide variety of disciplines, including development studies, international relations, politics, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology and history, among others. In addition to focusing upon large-scale armed conflict and insurgencies, Stability will address the challenge posed by local and regional violence within ostensibly stable settings such as Mexico, Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Civil-Military Engagement During Public Health Emergencies: A Comparative Analysis of Domestic Responses to COVID 19 Legitimate Targets: What is the Applicable Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force in Rio de Janeiro? Challenging how Danger is Understood: A Research Practitioners’ Note on Migration in Africa Housing, Land and Property Rights as War-Financing Commodities: A Typology with Lessons from Darfur, Colombia and Syria Reflections on the Evolution of Conflict Early Warning
×
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