Search results

The United Nations (UN) Security Council is stuck in a peacekeeping trilemma. This is a situation where the Council's three strategic goals for peacekeeping operations—implementing broad mandates, minimizing peacekeeper casualties and maximizing cost-effectiveness—cannot be achieved simultaneously. This trilemma stems from longstanding competing pressures on how the Council designs UN peacekeeping operations as well as political divisions between peacekeeping's three key groups of stakeholders: the states that authorize peacekeeping mandates, those that provide most of the personnel and field capabilities, and those that pay the majority of the bill. Fortunately, the most negative consequences of the trilemma can be mitigated and perhaps even transcended altogether. Mitigation would require the Council to champion and implement four main reforms: improving peacekeeper performance, holding peacekeepers accountable for misdeeds, adopting prioritized and sequenced mandates, and strengthening the financial basis for UN peacekeeping. Transcending the trilemma would require a more fundamental reconfiguration of the key stakeholder groups in order to create much greater unity of effort behind a re-envisaged peacekeeping enterprise. This is highly unlikely in the current international political context.

Australian electoral politics historically have been described as stable, with hung parliaments rare and changes of government infrequent. However, the 2015 Queensland election, where a government with the largest parliamentary majority in Australian history was defeated after a single term in office, seriously challenges assumptions of Australian electoral stability, and determining the causes behind this result is therefore of significant scholarly interest. While many journalistic analyses of the 2015 Queensland election argue that the distinctive leadership style of Liberal‐National Party leader Campbell Newman was wholly or principally responsible for the government's defeat, this article argues the result emerged from a confluence of factors, with two — a contentious LNP policy to lease major government‐owned assets, and Campbell Newman's "combative" leadership style — of relatively equal significance as principal determinants.

AbstractNever before has it been so important for policymakers to balance regional and global forms of peacekeeping. Although the United Nations Security Council retains primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and is the single largest source of peacekeepers, some regional organizations, particularly in Africa and Europe, are playing increasingly important roles. This article analyzes the relationship between UN peace operations and those conducted by regional organizations. After summarizing recent trends in regional‐global collaboration it analyzes the opportunities and risks of increasing the regionalization of peace operations. Current policy challenges are daunting, not least because better‐resourced missions alone will not bring peace to contemporary warzones. Rather, policymakers should clarify the nature and limits of UN peace operations; ensure partnerships between the UN and regional organizations can deliver effective peace operations in the field; and embed peace operations within a viable conflict resolution strategy to end the war or crisis in question.