Oliver Ramsbotham

Cosmopolitan peacekeeping and the globalization of security

UN peacekeeping is once again undergoing a period of intense critical scrutiny. Having passed through three major phases of development, from first (classical or traditional) to second (multidimensional) generation configurations, to a third phase in the mid- and late 1990s when peace support operations emerged, it currently faces another period of transition. This article speculates about the possible configuration of peacekeeping and its role in global politics. Debates about the role of peacekeeping in the international system should bring to the forefront a conception and practice of cosmopolitan peacekeeping, involving a capacity to protect civilians from violent conflict (the negative peace dimension) and a the capacity to address the human security agenda adopted by the UN in recent years.

The analysis of protracted social conflict: a tribute to Edward Azar

The aim of this article is to draw attention to the work of a conflict analyst whose theory of ‘protracted social conflict’ – developed in a sustained series of publications over a twenty-year period from the early-1970s – has been neglected in mainstream international relations, strategic studies and security studies circles. The first section offers a conceptual context for assessing the originality and significance of Azars approach. The second section outlines his theory of protracted social conflict. The third section evaluates his theory in the light of developments in conflict analysis in the 13 years since his death. The conclusion is that Azars work does not merit such neglect and that it still offers useful pointers for an understanding of the sources of major armed conflict in the turbulent and contested arena of post-Cold War politics.

Hawks and Doves: Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution

Since the end of the Cold War both the concept and practice of United Nation (UN) peacekeeping have undergone substantial changes. While deployments during the Cold War generally operated under the principles of impartial, non-forcible intervention with the consent of the conflict parties and the precondition of an agreed peace, more recent peacekeeping missions have, increasingly, been undertaken in the context of internal wars. As a consequence, these principles have come under an ever-increasing strain and the UN’s performance in recent missions has made it subject to severe criticism. It has variously been accused of doing too little, as in Bosnia, or too much, as in Somalia. In response to these criticisms, new thinking about peacekeeping has evolved on both the national and international (UN) levels. The caution about peacekeeping, which arose especially after the experience in Somalia, has been reviewed, favouring new doctrines that seek to combine a more robust approach with an increased capacity for peacebuilding.

UNPROFOR: Some observations from a conflict resolution perspective

This discussion of UN operations in the former Yugoslavia follows on from the conceptual analysis of peacekeeping in International Peacekeeping, Vol.1, No.1. It considers the ways in which peacekeeping and conflict resolution are mutually relevant in the light of the UNPROFOR experience, through to the end of 1993. It shows, first, how the mandate for UN operations became increasingly extended as the situation in Croatia and Bosnia‐Hercegovina deteriorated. Increased complexity led to severe demands on the conflict management skills of UNPROFOR at all levels. The second part of the article outlines how some of the insights and applied skills of conflict resolution analysis might usefully inform the theory and practice of peacekeeping and peace support operations of the kind undertaken in former Yugoslavia.

Humanitarian intervention 1990–5: a need to reconceptualize?

In the past, the key question about humanitarian intervention has been: if govern ments violate the basic human rights of their citizens, should other governments intervene forcibly to remedy the situation? Since the end of the Cold War the key question has been: if internal conflicts cause unacceptable human suffering, should the international community develop collective mechanisms for preventing or alleviating it? This, with due allowance for compression, contains the core of the case for reconceptualization.1 It is offered here in outline form in four stages.

Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Intervention in post-Cold War Conflict

The credibility of the UN and of peacekeeping as one of its main instruments of conflict management and of humanitarian intervention to relieve suffering in conflict zones has recently come under increasing attack. This is largely the result of the perceived inadequacy of the organization to deal with the enormous human suffering associated with the post-Cold War conflicts which erupted from 1991, especially those in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda.

Peace Research, Then and Now (1999)

Co-written with Professor Oliver Ramsbotham this paper explored the origins and development of peace research, principally from the early post-Second World War through to the end of the century. It identified a number of distinguishing features which separate it out from the analytical approaches of other social sciences, especially international politics, and argued that it has particular relevance to the security challenges likely to be dominant in the early 21st century.

Christian and Muslim Approaches to the Gulf War, 1990–1

This chapter is a case study in which the principles presented earlier are put to the test of a concrete example: the Gulf War of 1990–1. In ‘Desert Justice?’ David Fisher asks how far Christian just war criteria were applied in practice, and how far they stood up to the test of that application. His answer (in which he expresses his own views, not necessarily to be taken as reflecting official policy or thinking) is that they performed well, and that the war itself can be judged to have been a just one for that reason. The next section, ‘The Gulf War: Another Christian view’, for which Roger Williamson and Brian Wicker are responsible, then inserts a note of Christian scepticism about that conclusion, and suggests that it rests on the omission of some essential analytical elements. The chapter continues with two Muslim responses: first an analysis by Judge Al-Hajri of Qatar of the legality of the invasion of Kuwait under Islamic international law; and second an overview of Muslim reactions to the war as a whole, largely contributed by Abdel and Harfiyah Haleem, but with the concurrence of Zaki Badawi and Haifa Jawaad.

War and Peace in Islamic Law

Islam, as a formalized and institutionalized belief system, has its origins in seventh-century Arabia, with the revelations to the Prophet Muhammad, which we know as the Qur’an. The Qur’an states, however, that it confirms the earlier scriptures and prophets of God (Q. 3: 3, 5: 48, and so on). Muhammad was a prophet who also, in his later life, became a statesman. Fleeing persecution in his native Makkah (Mecca), he was invited, with his followers, to Madinah (Medina), where he founded a plural state, based on a constitution known as the Covenant of Madinah. Thus, unlike Christianity, Islam had immediately to grapple with the application of scripture to political life.

Islam and Christianity: a Shared Heritage and History

Islam and Christianity have much in common; yet our assumptions about each other are coloured, and indeed often distorted, by a shared but differently perceived theological, intellectual and social heritage, and by almost fourteen hundred years of shared history, at times painful, at times fruitful. Throughout that history we have disputed much of the same territory — not only in the Middle East, where both religions have their roots, but also in Asia, Africa and Mediterranean Europe.