Limitations to Realistic Expectations from International Peacekeeping

Since the early 1960s, international peacekeeping operations implemented under the UN mandate are thought to be one of the main instruments of international conflict management. Peacekeeping is presented as multidimensional, multistakeholder, and multilevel mechanism, which, evolving, is currently expected to deliver not only fundamental physical protection of civilian population in conflict zones, but also elements of peace-and state-building, including reconciliatory and reform-related activities. However, peacekeeping is often distorted by geopolitical contestations, which move back its modern purpose of supporting reconciliation towards more traditional, negative forms of peacekeeping. This allows one to formulate what can be named as realistic expectations from peacekeeping. The latter, as introduced in the first section of the work, contrary to the formally proclaimed objectives of operations, do not go further than the negative forms of peace. The second section further elaborates on the notion, explaining that geopolitics behind peacekeeping broadens the gap between promised and actual outcomes of peace, and suggesting that peacekeeping is rather utilised to construct and maintain control over more loyal local actors and to neglect or leave others behind. The second part also shows how sensitising and stigmatising can impact local ownership and the way it fits into the peacekeeping frameworks. The conclusion summarises the main arguments of the paper, suggesting a particular set of policies for contemporary peacekeeping practice based on the standpoints discussed