Human
Secur
i
t
y
A
Graduat
e
Thesi
s
Submi
tt
ed
i
n
Parti
al
Fuli
l
l
ment
of
the
Requi
rements
t
o
Obtai
n
the
Degree
of
Mast
er
of
Arts
i
n
I
nt
ernati
onal
Rel
ati
ons
Leiden University
Supervisor:Dr.Alanna O'Malley Student:Diego Salama (s1740121)
1
Contents
Acknowledgements ... 2
Introduction ... 3
Methodology and Case Study... 4
Why Human Security? ... 5
Peacekeeping Background: From buffer zones enforcers to rebuilders of States ... 8
Literature Review ... 10
What do we mean by success? ... 10
Human Security ... 12
Peacekeeping and Human Security: Finding the synergies ... 15
Theoretical framework ... 17
The Siamese triples and Human Security ... 18
Conclusion ... 24
Number of Words: 10.174
2
Acknowledgements
This study marks a second step of what I hope will become a lifelong endeavor of researching the United Nations and the history of the International System. Having the opportunity of concluding a Master’s Degree at Leiden University was a pleasure and an honor. Now that this step is finished I wish to thank the people who made it possible.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Alanna O’Malley. Not only for her insightful, demanding and creative supervision but also for the endless patience to read many drafts and provide comments and ask difficult questions. Her mentorship was paramount to the conclusion of my degree and this thesis.
This study was, mainly, conducted from the United Nations University (UNU-MERIT) and I would like to thank Dr. Lutz F. Krebs and Howard Hudson for giving me the time and space not only to write this thesis but to travel to Leiden in order to pursue this degree.
Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the endless support I receive from my family who, at times, has been tested more than I have by my academic endeavors. I could not have been able to conclude this degree without the love and support from my stepmother Judy, my sister Gabriela and my father, Rodolfo.
Diego Salama Maastricht, June 7th, 2016.
3
Introduction
The Middle East has been one of the most troublesome regions of the International System for the past decades (Kissinger, 2014). The different international, religious and sectarian disputes have been constantly posing threats to international peace and security. Consequently, the United Nations (UN) has been called upon to play an active role at creating and maintaining peace through a concept which was not explicitly written in the UN Charter that nevertheless became one of the most important pillars of the organization: Peacekeeping.
The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) has three missions currently deployed in the Middle East: the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). While the missions have different mandates the common objective is to maintain, to the extent possible, peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors (Hylton, 2013). However, gone are the days when Peacekeeping was only meant to create buffer zones and prevent escalations of inter-state conflicts. The concept of security cannot only reflect the classical realist notion of State survival and sovereignty; Security must now encompass a human element. This is necessary not only because it is what is morally expected of leaders but also because the Arab Spring has shown what happens with regimes which neglect their duty to their citizens. The three operations must also play their part in ensuring that the people within their mandates live without the ‘freedom from want and freedom from fear’ and evaluate themselves not only by ensuring the survival of their host states but by the Human Security of the people. Understanding why this paradigm shift is necessary will be the first thematic focus of this study.
The fact that the UN has missions deployed in the Middle East should not call attention in itself. After all, the entire region has been, one way or another, in armed conflict since the days of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. However, there are two important anomalies of this case. First, the aforementioned operations are less than 350 Km. Away
4
from each other. Second, they are, respectively, the 1st, 10th and 11th oldest missions, out
of 63 (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2015).
Their proximity and longevity are quite unusual. A priori it can be deduced that their longevity means they have not achieved their mandate and, at the same time, their proximity means the region is so unstable that three different missions –which are in driving distance from each other– are needed to maintain some degree of stability. These two features beg a number of questions, chief among them: If they have not been successful at achieving their mandate in so many decades, why are they still there? And since they are so close, why hasn’t the UN concentrated its effort into one single mission with three branches? These two questions will be the second thematic focus of this study due to the fact that it is necessary to review their effectives and relevance in order to conclude whether these missions are fit to confront the challenges posed by the Middle East turmoil today.
This thesis will analyze to what extent UNTSO, UNIFL and UNDOF have been successful in providing Human Security (HS) to the people within their mandates1
between 1978 and 2013. This study will evaluate their success through the Human Security principle, designed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). In order to answer this question the thesis will, first, outline the methodology and case studies; second, provide a brief background on the evolution of peacekeeping; third, a literature review will be conducted on the link the current methodologies used to measure mission success and the link between Human Security and Peacekeeping; third, a theoretical framework will be drawn based on the previous work and the gap which this study will fill shall be established; fourth their success will be evaluated by way juxtaposing their mandates and the Human Security principle before the thesis finishes with concluding remarks.
Methodology and Case Study
This research is both theoretically driven and policy-oriented. The evaluation of this study will be done by way of a comparative case study in which most similar
1 The missions are mandated to work in Israel, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Territories which
5
missions will be used. These three operations have been chosen due to the abovementioned anomalies: longevity, proximity and interconnection. This study will review each of the missions’ primary sources such as their mandates, reports of the Secretary-General and other documents from the DPKO and the mission itself. Moreover, these will be cross-referenced with scholarly work.
The cases were chosen due to the fact that, arguably, the missions are quite interdependent and working towards the same long-term goal: peace between Israel and the Arab world. UNIFIL serves as the military wing, while it has a robust civilian and political mandate; it is the only one of the three with a sizeable number of troops on the ground –10,000 compared to UNTSO’s 300. This mission conducts border control and demarcation, aerial surveillance and coordinates with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and, to a much lesser extent, the Syrian Armed Forces; UNTSO is the vessel through which the UN attempts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a civilian and political perspective however, it also has offices in Beirut and Damascus. UNDOF is the mission which tries to ensure the political stability of the border region between Israel’s borders with Syria and Lebanon (Satanovsky & Shumilin, 2014). The thesis will evaluate the three operations jointly therefore the time-frame will be from the year they were all deployed, 1978, until 2013. The end-date of this study has been chosen because it is the last year where data on Human Security and Human Development has been available for all countries involved
Why Human Security?
While a proper overview of Human Security will follow in the next section, it is necessary to spend a few words introducing the concept and how it will be applied. First, Human Security forces that the concept of security moves beyond the realist paradigm (Bajpai, 2000). Indeed it attempts to complement it because it “enhances human rights, and strengthens human development and by doing so it puts in place the necessary requirements for achieving peace, development and human progress” (United Nations Fund for Human Security, n.d). In other words, it goes beyond the realist conceptualization of security and takes much more holistic approach.
6
So as to empirically assess missions through this principle, it is important to establish a working definition. This study will adopt the definition crafted by the UN Commission on Human Security which took the UNDP’s 1994 definition and polished it as follows:
Human Security means to protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfilment. Human security means protecting fundamental freedoms— freedoms that are the essence of life. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strengths and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity (Ogata & Sen, 2001).
This particular definition was chosen of the many different ones for the fact that it is much more policy-relevant and valid to measure the UN’s work in peacekeeping using a definition set by the UN itself. The concept has seven bundles of indicators however, given the limitations of the thesis; the research will focus on one bundle:
Personal security Physical violence, crime, terrorism, child labor.
This indicator has been chosen because its sub indicators are the ones which fluctuated the most over the past decade. The ‘Arab Spring’ changed the entire face of the region and this movement erupted, primarily, because the issues of these indicators were lagging. Furthermore, they are the closely related to the mandate of all three missions.
7
The working hypothesis of this study is the following:
H1: The missions have failed to achieve their mandate and they have not been able to provide Human Security to the people in their sphere of influence.
The PKO’s efforts in the region have not been successful, especially after the Arab Spring. In fact, the Arab Spring illustrates the lack of Human Security in the Middle East. The outbreak of these revolutions was not purely political; it was the aftermath of decades-long socioeconomic grievances (Nuruzzaman, 2013). Proving this hypothesis will highlight the UN’s deficiencies in the Middle East and it will also provide policy-relevant lessons for the achievement not only of Human Security but the Sustainable Development Goals as well.
Before explaining how these indicators will be measured there are some important caveats to take into account. First, unlike the Sustainable Development Goals, Human Security lacks standardized indicators which can be measured quantitatively. The UN’s definition expressed that “threats to human security vary considerably across and within countries, and at different points in time” (n.d) which effectively means that its application is done on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, the UN’s definition lacks clarity which risks overstretching the concept and generating confusion (Martin & Owen, 2010). That being said, the main contribution this study wishes to make is to use Human Security as a framework at the strategic level; should Peacekeeping evaluate itself with Human Security, their approach may be much more comprehensive and legitimate with the local population.
The main limitation of Human Security is that it has been interpreted through many different methodologies and there is not agreed upon indicators (Owen, 2008). This study will review the cases at the operational level by way of studying of the
8
Human Development Index2 (HDI), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) whilst
keeping the strategic goals of Human Security present.
Peacekeeping Background: From buffer zones enforcers to rebuilders of States
Warfare is evolving. While conventional warfare has been diminishing for the past two decades, civil wars have been soaring. The common denominator of all of these conflicts is that civilians are caught in the middle and the regions usually face humanitarian crises. In order to meet these emerging challenges, the DPKO and the UN as a whole have had to go through an evolutionary process in which they developed a framework to maintain state sovereignty and protect civilians at the same time (Diehl P. , 2003)
In the case of Peacekeeping the missions went through a ‘generational evolution’. To take case in point, the UNTSO, UNDOF and UNIFIL were crafted as traditional or first generation (Battistelli, 2015). They focused almost entirely on the military and security component, they were not sent in order to interfere in the political (or even legal) dispute settlement (Diehl P. F., 1994).
These missions only sought to “freeze and contain conflicts during the cold war; they had a narrow agenda and focused on separation of armies and establishment of demilitarized buffer zones” (Popovski, 2015, p. 38). Their staffs were, primordially, military with some civilian officers who handled the politics of the deployment but not the politics of the conflict (Balas, Owsiak, & Diehl, 2012). However, as time passed the Security Council, taking into account the lessons learned by the first generation missions, expanded the mandates in order to establish a dual strategy. On the one hand the missions still maintained a military component and on the other hand, they also invested a great deal of resources in civil and political affairs; this evolved framework is known as Multidimensional Peacekeeping. Doyle & Sambanis (2007) provide an elegant definition:
2 The UNDP defines HDI as a “summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic
dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living”.
9
Today peacekeeping is the multidimensional management of a complex peace operation, usually in a post-civil-war context, designed to provide interim security and assist parties to make those institutional, material and ideational transformations that are essential to make peace sustainable (p. 321)
The added value of deploying multidimensional missions is considerable. Not only because the UN is able to deploy political officers with the intent of mediating and providing assistance in electoral, rule of law and education affairs. In addition, the missions facilitate the demobilization and separations of combatants and assist the national armed forces (Hultman, Kathman, & Shannon, 2014 ; Tharoor, 1995; Peter, 2015). While multidimensional peacekeeping has given the DPKO better tools to face the challenges that asymmetrical warfare poses to its missions, there is still a pressing need to rethink our concepts of security (Salverda, 2013). The fact of the matter is that the UN can no longer think only of security in the traditional, state-centric manner that it did at the time these three missions were deployed. The well-being of the people who live near the missions should become a necessary measurement of success or failure of peacekeeping operations (Ankersen, 2004).
However, this evolution did not happen smoothly, in fact, “the roles of Peacekeeping Missions became far wider than ever before, creating enormous problems of management and coordination at the international level. The resources and organizational capacity of the UN were stretched to the limit” (Malan, 1998). Entering political and civil affairs turned out to be a considerable challenge for missions at the operational level not only because host countries were reluctant to accept this new framework but also because missions now require even more extensive training and preparation and budget. In order to properly meet the challenges posed by the conflicts of the XXI Century the DPKO will need to find a balance between protecting human rights and maintaining state sovereignty (Karns & Mingst, 2001).
10
Literature Review
This literature review will focus on three major issues. First, the previous efforts to create a universal framework to measure the success of Peacekeeping will be reviewed. Second, the development and contribution of Human Security will be analyzed. Third, previous work on the relation between Human Security and Peacekeeping will be outlined together with the benefits of taking this innovative approach of operationalizing the former to measure the success of the latter. The objective of this review will be to draw a theoretical framework which proves how Multidimensional Peacekeeping and Human Security are not only closely related but can indeed complement each other and how the latter can make evaluating the former a more holistic and achievable goal.
What do we mean by success?
Assessing success of Peacekeeping Missions is an ongoing challenge and there is not an agreement on the best way to go about this. It is clear that Peacekeeping should ensure peace in order for the host country and the rest of the UN System to establish long-term progress and prosperity. And yet, there also appears to be a gap in terms of
how they should be measured on the ground. Indeed “the literature focused on
description and policy prescription, but was unable, owing to methodological limitations, to answer basic empirical questions such as whether peacekeeping works and what distinguishes successful cases from unsuccessful ones” (Fortna & Howard, 2008, p. 295). These methodological limitations revolve around the fact that most studies are focused on reviewing either a group of missions within a time frame or in an isolated manner from the rest. Furthermore, the efforts to measure success of Peacekeeping Operations appear to be standalone exercises which do not take into account how the rest of the UN system operating on the ground is performing. Indeed “while Missions have policies and routines to fulfill their mandated tasks they often have only a limited conception of how their activities are causally related to the larger goals of the UN” (Lipson, 2010, p. 251).
In addition, most efforts focus on policy implications rather than developing a theory of Peacekeeping that could be used as a wide-eye lens through which success is
11
measured –controlling for specific variables of each one, of course (Bellamy, 2004 ; Bures, 2007). The main reason stated by authors who focus on specific missions is that there are too many local factors happening around the missions which make it difficult to generalize their experiences. The standard study of peacekeeping is a paper which looks at one case study, describes it and draws policy recommendations for future missions (Diehl, Druckman, & Wall, 1998 ;Hultman, Kathman, & Shannon, 2014)
The lack of scholarly efforts to develop a comprehensive theory of peacekeeping makes it difficult to measure success and the extent to which missions have evolved sufficiently to keep up with the conflicts they are trying to stop. That being said, there is a debate on what are the best ways to measure success of Peacekeeping Missions. Aoi, Coning, & Thakur (2007) highlighted that the majority of the scholarly literature which came from the evaluating missions focused on the mandate in a narrow way and thus, concluding that there is a correlation between the robustness of the mandate and the effectiveness on the ground. One of the most cited frameworks for the measurement of success came from Diehl (1994) established two variables for success: this theory claims peacekeeping is successful insofar it limits armed conflict and promotes conflict resolution (pp. 3, 4).
However, this approach has been criticized by a number of scholars. Howard (2007) argues, for example, that Diehl’s approach cannot be extrapolated to conflicts in which States are not the only relevant actors. Indeed, Diehl’s approach overlooks “disarmament, power-sharing and post-civil war state institution-building”.
Therefore, in order to measure success of Multidimensional Missions in which States, rebel groups, ethnic tribes and civil society play a role in a levelled playing field, more variables should be added to the mix. Scholars have highlighted different indicators and they can be bundled in two strands.
First, authors focused around the importance of fostering socioeconomic reconstruction. Howard, (2007); Malan (1998); Pushkina (2006) tend to highlight the reestablishment of Rule of Law, Human Rights and Electoral Assistance. In other words, Peacekeeping succeeds whenever it favors Civil Affairs and uses its political capital to reconstruct civil society. Martin-Brûlé (2012) and van der Lijn (2010) stress the
12
importance of political affairs and state-building. Their argument can be distilled into the notion that missions should have the responsibility to act as early peacebuilders and that while that may not be directly written in their mandate, the missions have the duty to ensure that their presence helps the host country(ies) rebuild their government apparatus. The focus on State capacity-building was further highlighted by Call (2008) who argues that peacekeepers must, at first, enforce violence prevention but transfer those capacities to the State who should take over this responsibility.
The second strand of literature highlights that while the abovementioned variables are a necessary complement to measure success, there is a need to take into consideration the international political climate. Gilligan & Sergenti (2008) & Doyle & Sambanis (2006) focus on the international and regional politics. They argue that Peacekeeping can only succeed when the Security Council and the regional organizations support the mission with funding, political support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and abstaining from using the mission to advance their national interests.
The survey of the literature clearly shows that from the academic side, defining Peacekeeping success remains an ongoing debate and challenge. Scholars highlight different priorities and some claim that Missions should only be measured by reading their mandates while others claim success will only be achieved with international support. The majority of the literature would agree that missions cannot be only measured by the language of their mandate but also by the socioeconomic and political climate they help (or not) create in the host country (ies) or that mandates should be expanded in order to include these variables.
Human Security
The principle of HS has been gaining traction since it was first introduced in 1994. HS has allowed the traditional concept of security to meet the realities of the post-Cold War international system. The UN Human Security Unit (2009) outlines that the most important features are that it is people-centered, comprehensive, multi-sectoral and context-specific. In addition from an operational standpoint it fosters a more
13
comprehensive analysis because it blends top-down and bottom-up voices which makes it much more far-reaching.
Thakur (2006) conceives the principle not as an attempt to supplant state-centered security but to compliment it and also as a vessel for further international cooperation and an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the State and Civil Society. King & Murray (2002) explain that conducting risk-assessments and studying poverty with an added layer of HS has been particularly important for the UN’s work and development policy in general. In addition, this principle can serve as a very accurate indicator to measure peace and stability in any given country; whenever there is a considerable lack of Human Security, the threat level rises.
To that effect, Thomas & Tow (2002) hold that HS has significant potential to become a permanent fixture on the international agenda if it focuses its efforts towards resolving transnational crises. While State sovereignty remains sacrosanct it has been tested in the security field already and humanitarian intervention and stabilization peacekeeping therefore, instead of rebuffing the concept outright, states should focus on pushing the UN to develop a comprehensive framework and then adopt it via UNGA and UNSC Resolutions. Liotta (2002) takes the argument even further by suggesting that it is in the national interest of States to converge both notions of security in order to meet the challenges. The consensus seems to be that the potential of HS will be met if and when States decide invest political capital on the matter. For now the UN works with an incomplete principle in a pragmatic fashion.
Jolly & Ray (2006) point out that HS has become “an operational approach to people centered security able to identify priorities and produce important conclusions for national and international policy” (p. IV). There have been many efforts to mainstream its usage and translate it into policy. Gomez, Gasper, & Mine (2016) evaluated how the UNDP used it as a lens to measure development in their National Development Reports. The conclusion is that whenever the concept is given a working-definition and proper parameters, it can become very useful to understand the development challenges of the global south. Breslin & Christou (2015) stated that the concept has had mixed record when it comes to adoption because some of their
14
indicators (political, community and personal security) are more controversial in nature than health and poverty, for example. That being said, while incomplete, the contribution of HS is positive as it put all these challenges on top of the national and international agendas.
From a theoretical and ethical perspective, it has been a guiding force for the international development agenda. Hampson & Penny (2007) highlighted that HS has served as the philosophical background and justification for subsequent documents like the MDGs –and the SDGs–, the UN’s 10 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights among many other hard and soft law instruments.
That being said, the concept has been controversial ever since its inception. First of all, from a purely conceptual stance, HS has had multiple definitions and interpretations and while the UNDP’s definition is the most cited one, the literature –or policymakers for that matter– have not adopted it entirely. Paris (2001) argues that HS is, in fact, such a broad and lofty concept that tries to mean everything and thereby risking meaninglessness. Unless it becomes operational by way of adopting internationallly-agreed upon definitions and indicators, HS will not have the intended impact. And this conceptual overstrecht and vagueness creates confusion and sometimes even contraction between the indicators (Hammerstad, 2000).
The concept presents a number of political challenges. First Tadjbakhsh (2014) highlighted that its theoretical closeness with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and it is seen by many states as an indicator which could give foreign powers an excuse to intervene in their affairs. This skepticism has made States very wary about adopting as a long-term policy objective. If HS is seen as instrument to legitimize intervention then it will most likely never become a rule. Second, Thomas C. (2001) shows that the current global governance architecture conflicts with Human Security because it is dictated by national interests of the great powers and while the idea of applying is attractive, it will never be successful if the voices of the global south become more prominent in the decision-making process.
While the criticisms outlined are warranted and ask difficult questions which HS scholars and proponents may not be ready to answer, the principle has considerable
15
merit. There are some voices which propose that if reconciliation between conventional security and Human Security is achieved, both the State and the people benefit. Ewan (2007) proposes that reconciliation between traditional security and HS can be reconciled and that this blend will allow scholars and policymakers to conduct “more contextualized analysis of the historical and political conditions in which diverse forms of human insecurity arise” (p. 187). Burke (2001) issues a cautionary tale and while agrees that reconciliation is possible it can only be effective if HS does not lose its “emancipatory” features and avoids being hijacked by realist security it maintains.
In conclusion, the review of the Human Security literature has shown that the principle as it is now makes a positive contribution at the strategic level however, its incompleteness makes it difficult to adopt. HS has managed to start a larger conversation about security and state responsibility because it is no longer enough for states to guarantee their survival in order to maintain their legitimacy, now they have to also demonstrate that their populations live without the “freedom from want”. Indeed this wide prism can be very helpful to the UN as it starts its quest for sustainable development.
Peacekeeping and Human Security: Finding the synergies
HS is quite similar to the spirit of Multidimensional Peacekeeping which attempts to ensure that civil society is nourished in order to ensure sustainable peace. Whereas multidimensional peacekeeping “furthers political, economic, and humanitarian development” (Jasper & Moreland, 2015, p. 197), HS adds value to this process in the sense that balancing state security with human development needs can “ensure peacebuilding's long-term utility as an instrument and framework for advancing collective security at global, regional and national levels” (Ponzio & Ghosh, 2016, p. 118). In short, these two principles can and should be utilized jointly in conflict zones where the UN has deployed a mission. Admittedly the connection between the two principles remains quite understudied and there is only a small number of scholarly works which analyzes the success of Peacekeeping Operations using the indicators of Human Security despite their complementarity.
16
Uesugi (2004) provided a theoretical review of multidimensional peacekeeping and Human Security and found many positive impact of combining. First, including HS indicators within the mandate ensures that every portion of the population is looked after. Second, it ensures the mission embeds itself within the larger peacebuilding operation –which fosters cooperation between the mission and the rest of the UN system on the ground. Third, by way of consulting civil society and caring for their needs the optics of the mission improves on the ground.
Hasegawa (2004) focuses particularly on the benefit of including civil society at the micro-level (individuals and communities) in the modus operandi of the mission. While it goes without saying that multidimensional missions will contribute to the rebuilding of the state and civil society as a whole, it is also necessary to invest resources in fighting human insecurity. The people-centered argument is then followed by Conteh-Morgan (2005) who concludes that peace operations are much more successful the local population feels a sense of agency in the peacebuilding process. By including Human Security, the mission has the ability to empower the people and give them the opportunity to rebuild their own society.
From the practical side, the UN has also made two distinctive contributions by analyzing the benefits of applying both principles in Peacekeeping. The genesis is, of course, the Brahimi Report (2000) which, among other things, stresses that one of the first tasks of a newly deployed mission must be to ensure Human Security by way of rapid-deployment and comprehensive mandates. Admittedly the Report recommended the usage of HS yet it falls short of recommending its explicit inclusion in mandates. HS remains politically sensitive due to the unwillingness of states to admit they are failing their citizens and the perception that questioning a State’s HS record may lead to interventions (Peou, 2002)
The High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) issued a Report on the future of DPKO and stressed the urgent need for Peacekeeping to be reformed. Specifically, it called for any new mandate to be “people centered”, engage with civil society and empower them from the onset (2015). The DPKO must make a commitment to “help to improve the lives of people living in conflict-affected countries that they have
17
been mandated to serve. The Missions must be committed to the principles of the United Nations and be committed to helping to improve the lives of people living in conflict-affected countries that they have been mandated to serve” (p. 30). So far, the report explains, the DPKO has not made a sufficiently comprehensive effort to consult with the host civil society and that most of them do not see the benefit of having it in their country, which creates a number of problems. Again as the previous report, the HIPPO calls for the DPKO to take a less state-centric approach and pay more attention to the people but fails to propose the outright inclusion of HS, for similar reasons (Stamnes & Osland, 2016).
In conclusion, this section of the literature review showed that there is gap in the literature as peacekeeping has only been looked through HS on a theoretical level and in few occasions. That said there are significant advantages of missions designed with more comprehensive guiding principles which take into account the needs of the people at individual and societal level whilst rebuilding the state apparatus.
Theoretical framework
The literature review has shown not only that there is no unified approach to measure peacekeeping success but that there is a need for one. Indeed, a methodologically-rigorous formula which has ample and flexible indicators can make evaluation of missions across the board much easier and inclusive and it can help the UN evaluate how missions cooperate with the all relevant actors within the UN System and the host country. In other words, Human Security can become the bedrock of a unified theory for peacekeeping which carefully blends the realist needs of the state and abides by the principle of the Charter.
Applying Human Security to Peacekeeping is an idea with considerable potential and challenges. Its holistic approach certainly can allow for mandates to be broader and more comprehensive and, at the same time, HS can make the optics of the mission better by way of ensuring civil society on the ground to “buy-in”.
The challenges are political-in nature due to the sensitivity of member states about UN interference in their domestic affairs. This criticism is not necessarily
well-18
founded as the UN and specialized agencies such as the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, among many others, already have very comprehensive datasets which measure all indicators set forth by Human Security. While they may not be labeled as such, they do cover HS issues and the only reason HS does not have a comprehensive dataset such as the HDI is purely political short-slightness of some UN member States. In addition, the benefits of clustering efforts into one single set of indicators abiding the same overarching principle has both strategic and operational advantages therefore, including HS in the DPKO’s reasoning has more positive than negative connotations.
The next section of this study will evaluate this theoretical framework by way of studying three missions which have been deployed in one of the most volatile areas of the world.
The Siamese triples and Human Security
Before analyzing the missions and the success they had providing Human Security it is necessary to, briefly, introduce them and discuss their interdependence. UNTSO was created in 1948 by way of UNSC Resolution 50 (1948) with the mandate to observe and supervise the truce between the newly-born State of Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab countries as a whole. In addition, the mission serves as an intermediary between the parties involved in the conflict and as collector of information on the ground for the Security Council. Over the years the mission has seen its duties expanded as it was called on to assist in the cease fire of every major war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Moreover, it provides political assistance to both UNDOF and UNIFIL. Currently there are 151 military observers and 88 civilian international staff aided by 146 local civilians (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, n.d).
UNDOF was created in order to maintain the cease fire between Israel and Syria and supervise the disengagement between the IDF and the Syrian Army which was facilitated by the United States. The Security Council adopted resolution 350 (1974) which authorized the deployment of the mission and its overarching objective has been
19
to ensure the separation between both countries. In addition, the mission has been involved in civil affairs, public information, cooperated in the humanitarian projects and provided medical treatment. After the start of the Syrian civil war, the mission’s work and safety has been under constant threat; UNTSO and UNDOF forces have been attacked directly in more than one occasion. Currently the mission has 813 troops, 50 civilian international staff and 90 local staff (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, 2014).
UNIFIL was created in response to the constant volatility of the Israeli-Lebanese border. After a Palestinian commando group from Lebanon attacked Israel and left numerous casualties and wounded, the IDF was forced to retaliate and did so by invading Southern Lebanon. The UNSC authorized the deployment of UNIFIL by way of Resolution 475 (1978). The overarching purpose of the mission was to support the Lebanese authorities to establish a functioning state, ensure peace and security and confirm Israeli withdrawal from the area. In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon again and maintained the Southern Lebanon occupied until 2000 when it withdrew. UNIFIL was then expanded as a result of the War between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah which was provoked when the latter crossed the Blue line, kidnaped 2 soldiers and killed more. In order to deal with these challenges the mission size grew from 2,000 to 15,000 troops and the civil and political affairs department was also enhanced. The DPKO reports that as of 2015 the mission has 10,000 troops, 257 civilian international staff and 591 local staff (2015)
As the title of this thesis suggest the missions should be studied and understood as Siamese because over time they collaborate on a daily basis, provide services to each other logistically, militarily and politically (Hylton, 2013). It is not entirely clear whether these was the intent of the Security Council or if the missions respond to a unified long-term strategy of the DPKO however, on the ground the missions are three parts of the same trident, which has had positive impacts.
A key example of this has been the rapid deployment of the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) which was authorized by UNSC Resolution 2043 (2012) with the objective of monitoring the then agreed-upon six-point plan. The
20
mission was fully operational less than a month after the resolution was passed and it was due to the fact that the triplets3 “worked together and resolved many of the
challenges. This included the provision of equipment, supplies, telecommunications and the administration of personnel. This allowed both civilians and military observers to hit the ground running” (Haq, 2015). Inter-mission cooperation has proven to be a cost-effective policy and the model developed by the triplets has been exported to other regions with multiple missions deployed. For example, the two missions working in Sudan have adapted the modus operandi of their Middle Eastern counterparts and closely cooperate at the strategic and operational level (van der Lijn, 2008).
The local expertise together with the readiness of the Triplets will become increasingly important whenever the UN is called upon to play a role in the future of Syria. Understanding the strengths and weakness of the triplets should therefore, not only be seen as an important step towards developing a theory of Peacekeeping but also as a policy relevant exercise which will help design a future mission in the region. That being said, their success at cooperating with each other does make them successful at achieving Human Security per se.
The mandates of the mission beg the question what is the added value of looking at these missions through Human Security. After all, they have been created, largely to prevent further confrontation of States and they serve as observers and keepers of the peace in borders. The answer is twofold. First, the missions’ duties have been expanding considerably beyond their mandate to the extent that there is now ‘function creep’. Thakur defined it as “phenomenon in a PKO, where the mandate and tasks expand well beyond the original limited functions and when there is a lack of credible exit strategies” (Thakur, 2006, p. 56). Second, in order for the mission to achieve its mandate it has to “include a way to protect the people involved by guaranteeing public security, providing humanitarian relief, building social capital, nurturing the reconciliation and coexistence of divided communities, and restoring governance” (Uesugi, 2004, p. 119). Given these two issues, it is warranted to look at the three missions and evaluate the extent to which they contributed to the Personal Security of the people within their mandates.
21
This is the most basic level of security and it hopes to take away the “freedom from fear” and, at the same time, provide an adequate living standard. HS is measured by looking at the crime rate, number of terrorism incidents, physical violence and child labor 4 (United Nations Human Security Unit, 2009). While the mandates of UNDOF and
UNTSO are to supervise and observe military disengagement, they have been, indirectly, working towards protecting civilians. In addition UNIFIL has been given a mandate to ensure personal security in the South of Lebanon. The fluctuation of personal security in the region is exogenous to the missions themselves however; they do serve as a barometer of their work and, more importantly, their challenges.
Over the past decades the entire region made notable progress in securing personal security and human development. By looking at the progress these countries and territories made with regards to the MDGs and HDI, it was counterintuitive to expect that Syria would become an almost failed state and that the levels of human insecurity would increase as dramatically as they did.
For the past decades Syria had experienced an uninterrupted increase of HDI, particularly in the areas of Personal Security. Indeed, “between 1980 and 2014, Syria’s HDI value increased from 0.516 to 0.594, an increase of 15.1 percent or an average annual increase of about 0.41 percent” (United Nations Development Program, 2015, p. 6). In other words, Syria was a middle-income country with an average level of personal Security.
However this progress “fostered a set of higher expectations, both physiologically and socially determined, that placed considerable pressure on governments” (Kuhn, 2012, p. 674). In addition to demands to democratize the societies there was another factor which ignited the Arab Spring which has been understudied: the scarcity of resources, particularly water.
The revolution in Syria clearly had political connotations as the repressive regime did not respect human rights or gave any sort of political freedom. However, the war started after several years of drought where people from the rural areas lost their food
4 The variables for measurement of the HS Indicators reviewed in this study are based on the UNDP
22
security which led them to see their personal security dwindle. This had been forecasted by the UNDP’s report on the MDGs in Syria (2010) which highlighted the impact that scarcity of resources has on the stability of the country. As of now, the “dire conditions facing a large part of the population directly undermine all dimensions of their personal security” (Berti, 2015). As of May of 2016 it is very difficult to obtain reliable data from Syria however, the country now has over 4 million refugees, more than 500,000 deaths of its civil war and the state has vanished from a large portion of the territory. In less than three years of war all levels of Human Security have effectively vanished and the humanitarian crises will take more than a generation to solve (Weiner & Aguilera, 2015).
The war has left UNDOF in a very difficult position. The only reason they are still able to operate and ensure their mandate is because all actors fighting in Syria understand that should they go into Israel, the IDF would retaliate. The mission tried to help provide some degree of health and personal security since the war started however, in its current composition and mandate it is unable to do so.
The situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories vis-á-vis personal security is quite complex and the differences across the border are quite marked. Israel enjoys a very high level of HDI, the country finds itself 18th out of 188 measured. The Palestinian
Territories5 are in the middle of the HDI table and their progress towards the MDGs has
been steady which made their extreme poverty levels quite low (United Nations Development Indicators Unit, 2015). In the majority of areas of Personal Security both seem to have a good standing however, the areas in which they suffer are predominantly related to terrorism.
The terrorist attacks from Gaza to Israel have led the former to deploy military operations in The Strip with the objective of neutralizing terrorism which has been affecting many Israelis. In turn, the security measures taken by Israel together with the terrorist policies of Palestinian factions have reduced the personal security of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza although in the West Bank as well (Nusseibeh, 2008).
5 The UNDP tracks HDI only for the West Bank however, the UN Statistical Unit while tracking MDG
23
In addition, the Israeli security policies have also had a negative impact on Palestinian civilians who find themselves in the middle of the conflict. In other words, neither of the parties is blameless of the lack of HS in the territories.
In essence the conflict between Israel and Palestine –and the work of UNTSO for that matter– require an application of both traditional and human security. Any effort must take a balanced approach that respects the necessities of maintaining classical security and care for the population at the same time. As long as Israelis feel their personal security is attacked by Palestinian territories they will continue to apply military-based security aim at curtailing these attacks (Elron, 2007) . On the other hand, the Palestinian government in the West Bank needs to focus on ensuring personal security and controlling extremist factions working against that (Kaldor & Schemeder, 2010). Human Security can be achieved by way of ensuring both sides live without the freedom of fear and freedom of want.
The added value of keeping UNTSO is questionable. On the one hand, the mission’s mandate does not allow it to evolve to become multidimensional which renders it unable to assist in providing HS. The mission is now a fixed actor in the conflict and neither side seems to believe the UN is either entirely neutral or effective. On the other hand, the Israeli-Arab conflict is so volatile and constant that it is necessary for the Security Council to have a constant presence.
UNTSO did not solve the Israeli-Arab conflict and it was never intended to do that therefore measuring its success by such a high standard would not be fair. What the mission did and continues to do is “temper the conflict, facilitate communication and contain the violence. By reducing and managing tension on the ground, UNTSO mission continues to play a vital role in helping foster peace in the Middle East” (Theobald A. , 2015). UNTSO does not have the tools to ensure Human Security however; it can facilitate a climate which enables all parties to do so.
The political situation in Lebanon is as sensitive as it is fragile. In terms of Human Development, Lebanon finds itself as middle-class country which some degree of personal security. However, the current political crisis in Syria, the influx of Syrian refugees and the tension between Hezbollah and the IDF are posing a threat to
24
Lebanon’s personal security levels. Here Peacekeeping has been envisioned to play a role in achieving personal security.
UNIFIL’s mandate was enhanced in order to assist the Lebanese government strengthen its institutions in the South and prevent further violence. Also, UNIFIL is a very different mission than UNTSO and UNDOF not only because it has a very robust military component but because its mandate includes protecting civilians. Indeed Resolution 1701 (2006) authorizes it to take all necessary action to protect civilians therefore the level of personal security is a direct indicator of UNIFIL’s success. Unfortunately, UNIFIL’s role is almost entirely dependent on the political will of the host country and its role is “relatively minor and merely provides for the protection of those under imminent threat of physical violence” (Murphy, 2012, p. 402). As the situation in Syria worsens and spills over into Lebanon, UNIFIL will need to ensure the personal security of the incoming refugees and the Lebanese people. For now the mission has been achieving the stabilization part of its mandates however, if they do not care for personal security their success will be hindered (Arab, 2012)
In conclusion, the levels of personal security in the territory where the missions operate are, at best, mixed. The growth of terrorist organizations and their continuous attacks against civilians have pushed back all the Human Development progress achieved in Syria over the past decades. The Syrian crisis is having a profound impact on Lebanon and UNIFIL should play a role in this matter. In the Palestinian territories the level of personal insecurity comes from the inability of their government to control extremist elements and the military operations conducted by Israel. Personal security is a necessary first-step towards achieving sustainable peace and all operations need to play a considerable role ensuring it.
Conclusion
This paper evaluated to what extent are the Siamese Triplets able to provide Human Security to the people within their mandates. The results are, at best, mixed. The countries and territories did enjoy a high level of personal security which has been shown by MDG progress and HDI levels however; this was not entirely because of the
25
missions. In fact, none of the three missions had a robust mandate to engage in civil or political affairs until UNIFIL was elevated in 2006. Consequently, their efforts have been bypassed and undermined systematically by all countries at one point or another. That being said, the missions do have an added value. First of all, the mere presence of the UN has, to a moderate extent, downgraded the hostilities; by way of communication, facilitation and sometimes mediation, the missions have successfully deescalated tensions.
In addition, their level of cooperation and expertise has helped the UN to quickly deploy a mission in Syria and that knowledge will be of tremendous help in the future because the DPKO’s role in the Middle East will only increase in the next decades. The operation is Syria might have failed but it did so for reasons which went beyond the mandate of the mission and it showed that the cooperation between the triplets can have very positive effects.
This study marks a very early effort which outlines the concepts of multidimensional Peacekeeping and its potential relation with Human Security. More research is warranted in order to, first of all, develop Human Security indicators and, second, implement HS into the mandate of future and existing missions. The case of Siamese triplets shows that Peacekeeping has evolved however, it needs to continue to do so and measuring their success by way of evaluating how much Human Security the people within their mandates enjoy is the natural next step. As they stand now neither of them has been fully able to fulfill its mandate let alone facilitate Human Security.
26
Bibliography
Ankersen, C. (2004). Praxis versus Policy: Peacebuilding and the Military. In T. Keating, & A. Knight, Building Sustainable Peace (pp. 71-93). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Aoi, C., Coning, C. d., & Thakur, R. (2007). Unintended consequences, complex peace operations and peacebuilding systems. In C. Aoi, C. d. Coning, & R. Thakur,
Unintended Consequences of Peacekeeping Operations (pp. 3-21). Tokyo: United
Nations University Press.
Arab, F. (2012). UNIFIL Peacekeeping and Lebanese National Security. Washington, DC: United States Army War College.
Bajpai, K. (2000). Human Security: Concept and Measurement. Kroc Institute Occasional
Paper #19:OP:1, 1-24.
Balas, A., Owsiak, A. P., & Diehl, P. F. (2012). Demanding Peace: The Impact of Prevailing Conflict on the Shift from Peacekeeping to Peacebuilding. Peace & Change, 37(2), 195–226.
Battistelli, F. (2015). Peacekeeping between Politics and Society. In M. G. Galantino, & M. R. Freire, Managing Crises, Making Peace (pp. 21-45). London: Palgrave Macmillan .
Bellamy, A. J. (2004). The ‘next stage’ in peace operations theory? International
Peacekeeping, 18-38.
Berdal, M., & Ucko, D. H. (2015). The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping Operations: Problems and Prospects. The RUSI Journal, 6-12.
Berti, B. (2015). The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Regional and Human Security Implications.
Strategic Assessment, 41-56.
Billon, P. L. (2011). Bankrupting peace spoilers: Can peacekeepers curtail belligerents’ access to resource revenues? In P. Lujala, & S. A. Rustad, High-Value Natural
Resources and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. London: Routledge.
Bratt, D. (1997). Explaining peacekeeping performance: The UN in internal conflicts.
International Peacekeeping, 45-70.
Breslin, S., & Christou, G. (2015). Has the human security agenda come of age? Definitions, discourses and debates. Contemporary Politics, 1-10.
27
Bures, O. (2007). Wanted: A Mid-Range Theory of International Peacekeeping .
International Studies Review, 407-436.
Burke, A. (2001). Caught between National and Human Security: Knowledge and Power in Post-crisis Asia. Pacifica Review: Peace, Security & Global Change, 215-239. Call, C. T. (2008). Knowing Peace When You See It: Setting Standards for Peacebuilding
Success. Civil Wars, 173-194.
Conteh-Morgan, E. (2005). Peacebuilding and Human Security: A constructivist perspective. International Journal of Peace Studies, 69-86.
Daniel, D. C., & Hayes, B. C. (1996). Securing observance of UN mandates through the employment of military force. International Peacekeeping, 105-125.
Diehl, P. (2003). The International Community and disrupted states. In W. Maley, C. Sampford, & R. Thakur, From Civil Strife to Civil Society: Civil and Military
Responsibilities in Disrupted States (pp. 31-57). Tokyo: United Nations University
Press.
Diehl, P. F. (1994). International Peacekeeping . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diehl, P. F., Druckman, D., & Wall, J. (1998). International Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution: A Taxonomic Analysis with Implications. The Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 33-55.
Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2006). Making War and Building Peace: United Nations
Peace Operations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2007). Peacekeeping Operations. In T. G. Weiss, & S. Daws,
The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (pp. 322-348). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elron, E. (2007). Israel, UNIFIL II, the UN and the International Community.
Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & CultureEfrat Elron, 32-39.
Ewan, P. (2007). Deepening the Human Security Debate: Beyond the Politics of Conceptual Clarification. Politics, 182–189.
Fortna, V. P. (2004). Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace after Civil War. International Studies Quarterly , 48(2), 269-292 .
28
Fortna, V. P., & Howard, L. M. (2008). Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature. The Annual Review of Political Science, 283-303.
Gilligan, M. J., & Sergenti, E. J. (2008). Do UN Interventions Cause Peace? Using Matching to Improve Causal Inference. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 89–122.
Gomez, O. A., Gasper, D., & Mine, Y. (2016). Moving Development and Security Narratives a Step Further: Human Security in the Human Development Reports. The Journal
of Development Studies, 113–129.
Goulding, M. (1993). The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping . International
Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 69(3), 451-464.
Hammerstad, A. (2000). Whose Security? UNHCR, Refugee Protection and State Security After the Cold War. Security Dialogue, 391-403.
Hampson, F. O., & Penny, C. K. (2007). Human Security. In T. G. Weiss, & S. Daws, The
Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (pp. 539-561). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Haq, A. (2015). Challenges of 21-st Century Peace Operations in a UN Context. In A. Powles, N. Partow, & N. Nelson, United Nations Peacekeeping Challenge: The
Importance of the Integrated Approach (pp. 8-27). Farnham: Ashgate.
Hasegawa, Y. (2004). The UN Peace Operation and Protection of Human Security: The Case of Afghanistan . Human Security Perspectives, 1-7.
High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. (2015). Report of the High-level
Independent Panel on Peace Operations on uniting our strengths for peace: politics, partnership and people - A/70/95–S/2015/446. New York: United Nations
Department of Public Information .
Howard, L. M. (2007). UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Hultman, L., Kathman, J., & Shannon, M. (2014). Beyond Keeping Peace: United Nations Effectiveness in the Midst of Fighting. American Political Science Review, 737-753. Hylton, J. (2013). Middle East Peacekeeping Operations after Peace Accords on the Syria
and Lebanon Tracks. Journal of International Peacekeeping , 1–45.
Jasper, S., & Moreland, S. (2015). A Comprehensive Approach to Multidimensional Operations . Journal of International Peacekeeping, 191-210.
29
Jolly, R., & Ray, D. B. (2006). The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports: A Review of Experiences and Current Debates. National
Human Development Report Series - NHDR Occasional Paper 5.
Kaldor, M., & Schemeder, G. (2010). The deterioration of human security in Palestine. In M. Martin, & M. Kaldor, The European Union and Human Security: External
Interventions and Missions (pp. 95-112). London : Routledge.
Karns, M. P., & Mingst, K. A. (2001). Peacekeeping and the changing role of the United Nations . In R. Thakur, & A. Schnabel, United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Ad
Hoc Missions, Permanent Engagements. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
King, G., & Murray, C. J. (2002). Rethinking Human Security. Political Science Quarterly, 585-610.
Kissinger, H. (2014). World Order. New York: Penguin Press.
Kuhn, R. (2012). On the Role of Human Development in the Arab Spring. Population and
Development Review, 649-683.
Liotta, P. H. (2002). Boomerang effect: The convergence of national and human security.
Security Dialogue, 473–488.
Lipson, M. (2010). Performance under ambiguity: International organization performance in UN peacekeeping. The Review of International Organizations, 249-284.
MacQueen, M. (2008). Peacekeeeping and Peacebuilding. In T. C. Salmon, & M. F. Imber,
Issues In International Relations (pp. 182-195). New York: Routledge.
Malan, M. (1998). Peacekeeping in the New Millennium: Towards ‘Fourth Generation’ Peace Operations? African Security Review, 13-20.
Martin, M., & Owen, T. (2010). The second generation of human security: lessons from the UN and EU experience. International Affairs, 86(1), 211–224.
Martin-Brûlé, S.-M. (2012). Assessing Peace Operations' Mitigated Outcomes.
International Peacekeeping, 235-250.
Müller, P. (2014). Informal Security Governance and the Middle East Quartet: Survival of the Unfittest? International Peacekeeping, 464-480.
Murphy, R. (2012). Peacekeeping in Lebanon and Civilian Protection. Journal of Conflict
30
Nadin, P., Cammaert, P., & Popovski, V. (2014). Role and development of robust peacekeeping. Adelphi Series - Special Issue: Spoiler Groups and UN Peacekeeping, 75-102.
Nuruzzaman, M. (2013). Human Security and the Arab Spring. Strategic Analysis, 52-64. Nusseibeh, L. (2008). Why Human Security Is Relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict? Palestine-Israel Journal, 1-16.
Ogata, S., & Sen, A. (2001). Human Security Now. New York City: UN Commission on Human Security.
Owen, T. (2008). Measuring Human Security: Methodological Challenges and the Importance of Geographically Referenced Determinants. In P. Liotta, D. Mouat, W. Kepner, & J. Lancaster, Environmental Change and Human Security: Recognizing
and Acting on Hazard Impacts (pp. 35-64). Springer.
Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. (2000). Report of the Panel on United Nations
Peace Operations - A/55/305-S/2000/809. New York : United Nations Department
of Public Information.
Paris, R. (2001). Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? International Security, 87-102.
Peou, S. (2002). The UN, Peacekeeping, and Collective Human Security: From An Agenda for Peace to the Brahimi Report. International Peacekeeping, 51-68.
Peter, M. (2015). Between Doctrine and Practice: The UN Peacekeeping Dilemma. Global
Governance, 351–370.
Piiparinen, T. (2015). The Interventionist Turn of UN Peacekeeping: New Western Politics of Protection or Bureaucratic Mission Creep? Journal of Human Rights, 1475-4843.
Ponzio, R., & Ghosh, A. (2016). Human Development and Global Institutions: Evolution,
Impact, Reform. New York: Routledge.
Popovski, V. (2015). De-Mythologizing Peacekeeping. Journal of International
Peacekeeping, 33-55.
Pugh, M. (2007). Peace Enforcement. In T. G. Weiss, & S. Daws, The Oxford Handbook of
31
Pushkina, D. (2006). A Recipe for Success? Ingredients of a Successful Peacekeeping Mission. International Peacekeeping, 133-149.
Salverda, N. (2013). Blue helmets as targets A quantitative analysis of rebel violence against peacekeepers, 1989–2003. Journal of Peace Research, 1-14.
Satanovsky, E., & Shumilin, A. (2014). Blue Helmets: The Causes of Impotence. Security
Index: A Russian Journal on International Security, 67-78.
Sloan, J. (2014). The Evolution of the Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping. Journal of
Strategic Studies, 674-702.
Stamnes, E., & Osland, K. M. (2016). Synthesis Report: Reviewing UN Peace Operations, the
UN Peace-building Architecture and the Implementation of UNSCR 1325.- NUPI Report # 2. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.
Tadjbakhsh, S. (2014). Human security twenty years on. Oslo: The Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre .
Thakur, R. (2006). The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the
Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tharoor, S. (1995). Should UN Peacekeeping Go ‘Back to Basics’? Survival, 52-64.
Theobald, A. (2015). The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). In J. Koops, N. MacQueen, T. Tardy, & P. D. Williams, The Oxford Handbook of United
Nations Peacekeeping Operations (pp. 121-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Theobald, A. G. (2009 ). Watching the War and Keeping the Peace: The United Nations
Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in the Middle East, 1949-1956. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ontario: Queen’s University .
Thomas, C. (2001). Global governance, development and human security: exploring the links. Third World Quarterly, 159-175.
Thomas, N., & Tow, W. T. (2002). The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention. Security Dialogue, 177–192.
Uesugi, Y. (2004). The Nexus between UN Peacekeeping and Human Security: Reviewing the Functions of UN Peacekeeping from a Perspective of Human Security. Conflict
32
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. (2014). UNDOF: Facts and
Figures. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from UNDOF:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/undof/background.shtml
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. (2015, August 31).
Peacekeeping Fact Sheet.
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. (2015). UNIFIL: Background. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from UNIFIL: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unifil/facts.shtml
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. (n.d). UNTSO: Facts and Figures. Retrieved June 12, 2014, from UNTSO: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/untso/facts.shtml
United Nations Development Indicators Unit. (2015). MDG Country Progress Snapshot for
Palestine. New York: United Nations Statistical Division.
United Nations Development Program. (1994). Human Development Report. New York: Department of Public Information .
United Nations Development Program. (2015). Briefing note for countries on the 2015
Human Development Report : Syrian Arab Republic. Damascus: UNDP.
United Nations Development Programme . (2010). Syrian Arab Republic: Third National
MDGs Progress Report . Damascus: UNDP Syria.
United Nations Fund for Human Security. (n.d). Human Security Approach. Retrieved 1 May, 2016, from The application of human security:
http://www.un.org/humansecurity/human-security-unit/human-security-approach#a1
United Nations Human Security Unit. (2009). An Overview of the Human Security Concept
and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. New York: United Nations
Department of Public Information.
United Nations Security Council . (2006). Resolution 1701. New York: United Nations Department of Political Affairs.
United Nations Security Council. (1948). Resolution 50. New York: United Nations Department of Political Affairs.
