Instructions: Your initial post should be at least  500 words Questions are often raised about the effectiveness of the United Nations in conflict resolution and peace operations. To what extent has the UN  been successful in mitigating or preventing conflict? Under what conditions are peace operations likely to be successful? Reading and References Introduction Since 1945, “the UN has been involved in nearly every major international conflict” (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009, 67) This fact begs the question: Do international organizations (IOs) effectively build peace and prevent conflicts within and among states? This question of conflict management is the core of this lesson’s discussion and reading.  Our focus is on the United Nations (UN) as a global IO. There are debates among scholars and practitioners concerning the ability of the UN to prevent conflict. On the one hand, supporters point to certain successes, such as the UN-sponsored referendum that led to the independence  of East Timor in 2002 after almost three decades of Indonesian occupation. On the other hand, however, critics often point to the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994; further, UN peacekeeping in Bosnia failed to stop the genocide there. They argue  that the UN faces significant challenges that cause it to struggle when it comes to its mandate of protecting civilians.  It is worth mentioning here how the UNSC's mandate has evolved over time from dealing with the risk of war to working on issues such as humanitarian interventions in internal conflicts. This was possible only after the collapse  of the Soviet Union, which facilitated the development of a more activist Council and "brought the UNSC into the mainstream of international security affairs” (Hurd and Cronin 2008, 13-14). The question is, then, has the UNSC been more or less effective with  this expanded mandate? The UN is in a difficult and complex situation in having to deal with a record number of peacekeeping missions, in part due to its expanded mandate. Today, the UN reports that there are over 100,000 peacekeepers serving in 16  different operations across the globe; this activity comes at a cost of $8 billion a year. UN peacekeepers, in addition, are facing significant resource constraints, making it difficult to fulfill their mandates. Moreover, critics point out that the Security  Council is increasingly divided (particularly among Russia and the United States), resulting in a general lack of political support. Challenges In part, the challenges facing peacekeepers can be attributed to the changing nature of peacekeeping missions themselves. In the early days of peacekeeping (from its inception in 1948 through the end of the Cold War), peacekeeping  missions were undertaken in areas where peacekeepers filled a non-armed military observer role, which included enforcing treaties and cease-fire agreements between states. Toward the en.

1. Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 500 words
Questions are often raised about the effectiveness of the United
Nations in conflict resolution and peace operations. To what
extent has the UN been successful in mitigating or preventing
conflict? Under what conditions are peace operations likely to
be successful?
Reading and References
Introduction
Since 1945, “the UN has been involved in nearly every major
international conflict”
(Bercovitch and Jackson 2009, 67)
This fact begs the question: Do international organizations
(IOs) effectively build peace and prevent conflicts within and
among states? This question of conflict management is the core
of this lesson’s discussion and reading. Our focus is on the
United Nations (UN) as a global IO.
There are debates among scholars and practitioners concerning
the ability of the UN to prevent conflict. On the one hand,
supporters point to certain successes, such as the UN-sponsored
referendum that led to the independence of East Timor in 2002
after almost three decades of Indonesian occupation.
On the other hand, however, critics often point to the United
Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) failure to prevent the
Rwandan genocide in 1994; further, UN peacekeeping in Bosnia

2. failed to stop the genocide there. They argue that the UN faces
significant challenges that cause it to struggle when it comes to
its mandate of protecting civilians.
It is worth mentioning here how the UNSC's mandate has
evolved over time from dealing with the risk of war to working
on issues such as humanitarian interventions in internal
conflicts. This was possible only after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, which facilitated the development of a more
activist Council and "brought the UNSC into the mainstream of
international security affairs” (Hurd and Cronin 2008, 13-14).
The question is, then, has the UNSC been more or less effective
with this expanded mandate?
The UN is in a difficult and complex situation in having to deal
with a record number of peacekeeping missions, in part due to
its expanded mandate. Today, the UN reports that there are over
100,000 peacekeepers serving in 16 different operations across
the globe; this activity comes at a cost of $8 billion a year. UN
peacekeepers, in addition, are facing significant resource
constraints, making it difficult to fulfill their mandates.
Moreover, critics point out that the Security Council is
increasingly divided (particularly among Russia and the United
States), resulting in a general lack of political support.
Challenges
In part, the challenges facing peacekeepers can be attributed to
the changing nature of peacekeeping missions themselves. In
the early days of peacekeeping (from its inception in 1948
through the end of the Cold War), peacekeeping missions were
undertaken in areas where peacekeepers filled a non-armed
military observer role, which included enforcing treaties and
cease-fire agreements between states. Toward the end of the
Cold War, however, the number of peacekeeping missions

3. started to increase significantly, and the UN began sending
peacekeeping forces to step in and intervene in intrastate
conflicts. Over the last few decades, peacekeeping missions
have been undertaken to help mediate conflicts in areas
experiencing civil war, including Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and
the Central African Republic. The nature of peacekeeping
mandates is changing to include the protection of civilian
populations, yet UN peacekeepers often lack adequate funding
and political support to effectively carry out their mandates.
Overall, there are a variety of factors responsible for
peacekeeping failures, a lack of resources being one of the most
important. Another factor to consider is poor communication
between the peacekeepers on the ground and UN leadership. As
you complete the reading, consider which other factors are
preventing UN peacekeepers from effectively protecting civilian
populations.This map summarizes the United Nations'
peacekeeping operations
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/bnotelatest.pdf
Effectiveness
Given all of these considerations, the question is, do IOs
succeed in mitigating or preventing conflict? In the academic
literature, IR scholars have posed many specific research
questions in an attempt to measure whether and how IOs
prevent or mitigate conflict, and how the answer to these
questions can be measured.
For example, Shannon, Morey, and Boehmke (2010, 1124)
asked in our assigned reading,

4. “do international organizations decrease the duration of
conflict?”
and tested the question by looking specifically at militarized
interstate dispute duration in a defined timeframe.
Their analysis tells us that, although joint IO membership may
not be able to prevent conflict outright, it should decrease the
duration of a conflict. One might interpret this assessment as a
beacon of hope for the UN, since "organizations end disputes
more quickly by helping members overcome commitment
problems, particularly enforcement mechanisms that compel
states to sign and uphold agreements" (Shannon, Morey and
Boehmke 2010, 1124).
However, there are often multiple actors involved in a conflict
situation, so we also have to consider the role of third party
actors as well (including non-state actors). These "third parties
may increase the duration of fighting" (Shannon, Morey and
Boehmke 2010, 1125), and this can significantly slow down the
UN's efforts at establishing peace.
In “Security Council Reform: Past, Present, and Future,” Shashi
Tharoor argues that Security Council reform is needed to
preserve the credibility of the United Nations itself. As you
read this and the other articles, consider what specifically
needs to be reformed. For example, perhaps the veto power of
the permanent members should be reformed rather than the
number of permanent members who hold veto power (Tharoor
2011, 400-401). Tharoor contends that
"the multiplicity of actors on the international scene...could
fragment the international system and reduce international
cooperation"

5. (Tharoor 2011, 405)
On the other hand, others have argued that reforming the actual
number of veto players is an essential component of Security
Council reform since the distribution of power in the world
looks very different today than it did in 1945. The current
permanent members of the Security Council are often
gridlocked in their use of the veto power, as is evident from the
recent conflict in Syria. The question is, would adding more
countries to the pot only make it that much harder to ever have
a consensus on future security action, or would it enable better
decision-making by incorporating a wider range of interests?
Many studies have attempted to tally and analyze the UN’s
mediations, successes, and failures since 1945. For example, in
their study, Bercovitch and Jackson (2009) include statistical
data on several aspects of UN effectiveness compared to other
actors. One aspect they examine is the success of mediation
efforts by different actors, comparing the UN to individual
mediators, regional organizations, NGOs, states, and more.
They find that the UN has a mixed success rate, coming in at
approximately 36%, compared to a success rate of about 45%
for regional organizations, which score the highest. They also
find that the UN accounts for about 23% of all mediation
efforts; while states account for the highest proportion at 46%
of all mediation efforts.
UN Mediation Effectiveness
The authors further examine UN mediation efforts to determine

6. when and where the UN is most likely to get involved. In terms
of conflict type, interstate conflicts (that is, conflicts between
states) comprise 71% of all UN mediation efforts, while
intrastate conflicts (i.e., conflicts within states) comprise 29%
(Bercovitch and Jackson 2009: 68). As you can see, most UN
mediations concern conflicts occurring between states.
Moreover, their data shows that the UN has a worse success rate
when intervening in intrastate conflict (conflicts within states),
yet this has become the more common type of conflict since the
1990s (Bercovitch and Jackson 2009: 68). This raises questions
concerning how the UN could increase its efficacy in mediating
conflicts within states since these are the types of conflicts that
are likely to occur more frequently.
Lastly, UN mediation efforts have taken place in every region
of the world, but the success rate varies by region. According to
Bercovitch and Jackson (2009, 68), the highest success rates of
UN mediation have been:
Conclusion
Taking this data on UN mediation effectiveness and the
readings from this lesson as our starting point, our last
discussion will focus on the extent to which the UN has been
successful in mitigating or preventing conflict, and the
conditions under which peace operations are likely to be
successful.
Thanks for all your work this semester! This class gave us an
opportunity to debate the key issue related to the study of
international organizations while also learning about the areas
in which they operate. Our course objectives aided your
continued mastery of the International Relations Program
Objectives as well.

7. References:
Doyle, Michael and Nicholas Sambanis. 2000. “International
Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis.”
American Political Science Review
94(4): 779-801.
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/stable/pdf/2586208.pdf?
acceptTC=true
OR
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2586208
Shannon, Megan, Daniel Morey, and Frederick J. Boehmke.
2010. “The Influence of International Organizations on
Militarized Dispute Initiation and Duration.
International Studies Quarterly
54(5): 1123-1141.
http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.e
zproxy1.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=555951
14&site=ehost-live
Tharoor, Shashi. 2011. “Security Council Reform: Past, Present,
and Future.”
Ethics and International Affairs
25(4): 397-406.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/9175417
88/fulltext/FA8365A44D814966PQ/3?accountid=8289