UN-Led or Non-UN-Led Peacekeeping Operations?

Abstract

Non-UN-led peacekeeping operations have during 1948-2000 been as frequent as UN-led operations. But are, as commonly claimed, non-UN-led peacekeeping operations more likely to succeed than UN-led operations? Or is it the case, and just as implied by the UN Charter, that regional peacekeeping operations and UN peacekeeping operations are substitutable and complementary tolls for addressing threats to international peace and security? The empirical accuracy of these claims has clearly large policy implications for the ongoing debate on whether the UN or regional actors should be entrusted with peacekeeping tasks.

This article provides a brief inventory of theories and empirical evidence on whether non-UN-led peacekeeping operations are more or less likely to succeed than UN-led operations. It finds that whereas the theories may be compelling, the only large-scale comparative empirical study fails to identify any robust difference in success rates.