Ian Johnstone

Keeping the peace : multidimensional UN operations in Cambodia and El Salvador

1. Introduction Michael W. Doyle, Ian Johnstone and Robert C. Orr Part I. Cambodia: 2. Three visions of politics in Cambodia David Chandler 3. The political dynamics of the peacekeeping process in Cambodia Jin Song 4. The Cambodian settlement agreements Nishkala Suntharalingam 5. Holding a fragile peace: the military and civilian components of UNTAC Cheryl M. Lee Kim and Mark Metrikas 6. Authority and elections in Cambodia Michael W. Doyle 7. Returning home: the repatriation of Cambodian refugees Brian Williams 8. Quick impacts, slow rehabilitation in Cambodia Elisabeth Uphoff Kato Part II. El Salvador: 9. Insurrection and civil war in El Salvador Edelberto Torres-Rivas 10. Peacekeeping in El Salvador Mark Levine 11. The El Salvador peace accords: using international and domestic law norms to build peace Timothy A. Wilkins 12. From peacekeeping to peacebuilding: restructuring military and police institutions in El Salvador David H. McCormick 13. Rights and reconciliation in El Salvador Ian Johnstone 14. The arms-for-land deal in El Salvador Graciana del Castillo 15. Strategies for peace: conclusions and lessons Michael W. Doyle, Ian Johnstone and Robert C. Orr.

Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing Down the Deliberative Deficit

Critiques of decision making in international organizations are often framed in terms of the democratic deficit. Leveled against the United Nations Security Council, the charge has become more pointed in light of recent quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial acts—most notably the adoption of Resolutions 1373 and 1540 on the financing of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, respectively, and the Resolution 1267 sanctions regime, which targets individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism. With the first two resolutions, the Security Council imposed general obligations on all states for an indefinite period; with the third, it set up a sanctions committee that has courtlike powers to identify and freeze the assets of individuals, groups, and corporations. Despite broad sympathy among the UN membership for collective counterterrorist action in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, a degree of skepticism accompanied these initiatives from the start and grew with the diplomatic debacle surrounding the war in Iraq. Some critics asked whether an “imperial” Security Council had become an instrument for the imposition of “hegemonic international law.” The Council has moved to address these concerns, but they remain serious enough that the regimes established under Resolutions 1267, 1373, and 1540 are at risk of collapsing.

Managing Consent in Contemporary Peacekeeping Operations

Consent to UN peacekeeping has faced powerful challenges. Host governments have either called for premature withdrawal of missions or so obstructed operations that fulfilling mandates became almost impossible. This article argues that strategies for managing deteriorating consent can be devised from relational contract theory. That theory envisages peace agreements as embodying a dynamic set of relationships among multiple actors, not only the signatories to the agreement but all stakeholders in a peace process. Original consent to the agreement – and to a peace operation deployed to support its implementation – matters, but the terms of the agreement should be understood as also encompassing the shared expectations that emerge from the ongoing relationship and the normative context in which it is embedded. The effective management of consent must account for that as well as the peacekeeping operation’s own evolving relationship with the relevant actors, both internal and external.

Introduction – The US Role in Contemporary Peace Operations: A Double-Edged Sword?

As the globes dominant power with interests and influence around the world, the United States has been an essential yet uneasy partner in peace operations. This article considers three contemporary challenges that illustrate the double-edged nature of US involvement: the increasingly robust nature of peace operations, the importance of long-term political engagement, and the need for new institutional partnerships to meet increasing demand. The United States is uniquely capable of facilitating success in all three areas, yet its global status tends to raise questions about the motives of US involvement in peace operations and its ability to serve collective purposes.