NCJ Number
191594
Date Published
October 1999
Length
95 pages
Annotation
This document focuses on peacekeeping and intervention in the Post-Cold War Era.
Abstract
Peacekeeping can be accomplished in two ways, by conciliation or by enforcement. Conciliation, in the context of a cease-fire agreement and the promise of political negotiations, is the classic model of United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping. At the end of the Cold War traditional peacekeeping activities were expanded, first into intra-state situations, and then into more complicated operations, referred to as post-conflict peace building. Intervention is intrinsically different from traditional peacekeeping; it implies a lack of consent by at least one of the parties to the dispute and the use of force by an external agent. It is important to carefully define in advance the purpose and objectives of any contemplated international intervention. The difference between a benevolent force of peace and a war-fighting and occupational force is fundamental and failure to clearly distinguish between the two will lead to failure. One major component of international law is customary law; the other consists of treaties and other agreements, including the Charter of the United Nations. The last decade has seen a change in the way the role of the State in international law and the role of the U.N. Charter are regarded. The States were sovereign in law as well as practice until the U.N. Charter changed the situation by restricting the use of war and force, except in self-defense. Without a clear identification of United States (U.S.) national interests, it is difficult to build domestic support for peacekeeping and multinational intervention. Two serious misconceptions must be debunked when discussing intervention today. First is that U.S. intervention equals military action. Second is that the end of the cold war is the single most important factor on the present international dynamic. At least of equal importance is ever accelerating globalization born of technological and information revolutions. A justification for intervention is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which constitutes a threat to international peace and security.