太少,太迟:传统维和规范对联合国保护部队的制约作用及其后果

A. Franken
{"title":"太少,太迟:传统维和规范对联合国保护部队的制约作用及其后果","authors":"A. Franken","doi":"10.26443/firr.v9i2.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the Bosnian War (1992-1995),  despite the efforts of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), thousands of lives were lost in heinous attacks on Bosnian Muslims, perpetrated mostly by Bosnian Serbs. Using a constructivist approach, this paper investigates why the United Nations (UN) failed in their mandate to protect the Bosnian people. To do so, it examines the deeply entrenched norms that have traditionally guided UN peacekeeping – namely, impartiality and non-use of force. By tracing the key events that defined the UN’s involvement in this conflict in relation to existing theoretical models of norm emergence and evolution, the paper finds that the UN’s strict adherence to these principles significantly contributed to their failure to achieve their objectives. This is evidenced by the limited capacity of the UN peacekeepers during the conflict, the swift improvement of conditions following the replacement of UNPROFOR with the NATO-led Implementation Force, and the developments within the UN that ensued in the following years. The paper concludes with potential implications of these findings and suggestions for further research.","PeriodicalId":417989,"journal":{"name":"Flux: International Relations Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Little, Too Late: The Constraining Effect of Traditional Peacekeeping Norms On the UN Protection Forces and its Consequences\",\"authors\":\"A. Franken\",\"doi\":\"10.26443/firr.v9i2.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the Bosnian War (1992-1995),  despite the efforts of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), thousands of lives were lost in heinous attacks on Bosnian Muslims, perpetrated mostly by Bosnian Serbs. Using a constructivist approach, this paper investigates why the United Nations (UN) failed in their mandate to protect the Bosnian people. To do so, it examines the deeply entrenched norms that have traditionally guided UN peacekeeping – namely, impartiality and non-use of force. By tracing the key events that defined the UN’s involvement in this conflict in relation to existing theoretical models of norm emergence and evolution, the paper finds that the UN’s strict adherence to these principles significantly contributed to their failure to achieve their objectives. This is evidenced by the limited capacity of the UN peacekeepers during the conflict, the swift improvement of conditions following the replacement of UNPROFOR with the NATO-led Implementation Force, and the developments within the UN that ensued in the following years. The paper concludes with potential implications of these findings and suggestions for further research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":417989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Flux: International Relations Review\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Flux: International Relations Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v9i2.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Flux: International Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26443/firr.v9i2.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在波斯尼亚战争(1992-1995年)期间,尽管联合国保护部队(联保部队)作出了努力,数以千计的人在主要由波斯尼亚塞族犯下的对波斯尼亚穆斯林的令人发指的攻击中丧生。本文运用建构主义的方法,调查了联合国为何未能履行其保护波斯尼亚人民的使命。为此,报告审查了传统上指导联合国维持和平的根深蒂固的准则,即不偏不倚和不使用武力。通过追踪界定联合国参与这场冲突的关键事件与现有规范产生和演变的理论模型的关系,本文发现联合国严格遵守这些原则是其未能实现目标的重要原因。冲突期间联合国维持和平人员的能力有限,在以北约领导的执行部队取代联保部队后情况迅速改善,以及随后几年联合国内部的发展,都证明了这一点。文章最后提出了这些发现的潜在意义和进一步研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Too Little, Too Late: The Constraining Effect of Traditional Peacekeeping Norms On the UN Protection Forces and its Consequences
During the Bosnian War (1992-1995),  despite the efforts of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), thousands of lives were lost in heinous attacks on Bosnian Muslims, perpetrated mostly by Bosnian Serbs. Using a constructivist approach, this paper investigates why the United Nations (UN) failed in their mandate to protect the Bosnian people. To do so, it examines the deeply entrenched norms that have traditionally guided UN peacekeeping – namely, impartiality and non-use of force. By tracing the key events that defined the UN’s involvement in this conflict in relation to existing theoretical models of norm emergence and evolution, the paper finds that the UN’s strict adherence to these principles significantly contributed to their failure to achieve their objectives. This is evidenced by the limited capacity of the UN peacekeepers during the conflict, the swift improvement of conditions following the replacement of UNPROFOR with the NATO-led Implementation Force, and the developments within the UN that ensued in the following years. The paper concludes with potential implications of these findings and suggestions for further research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信