Institutional Alternatives to Traditional U.N. Peacekeeping: An Assessment of Regional and Multinational Options

Abstract

This essay assesses the utility of two prominent alternate arrangements to traditional UN peacekeeping operations, i.e., peacekeeping operations organized by regional organizations or by multinational forces not under the control or direction of an international organization. For each alternative, it describes proposed changes to existing practice and points out alleged advantages over the status quo. Each alternative is assessed to determine the existence and magnitude of those advantages as well as the conditions under which such advantages are likely. Special attention is given to how (if at all) the alternatives address the general conditions for success.

Overall, despite its faults, the current mode of operation holds up rather well in comparison to the alternatives. Regional and multinational peacekeeping operations have the potential to succeed or fail for many of the same reasons that UN operations do, and they might be appropriate substitutes for the UN. Yet they also carry with them some unique risks and problems that make their applicability much more limited. Multinational operations might be best used when one or more of the disputants objects to the participation of the UN or wishes to have a major power guarantee the operation. Regional peacekeeping efforts may best when done jointly with the UN or when confined to conflicts involving small states in the region.