Citation

Jakobsen PV. J. Peace Res. 1996; 33(2): 205-215.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343396033002006

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article undertakes a structured, focused comparison of five post-Cold War United Nations (UN) peace enforcement operations to determine why they were initiated. The roles played by five explanatory factors are examined in the operations in Kuwait, Northern Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. These factors are: a clear humanitarian and/or legal case, national interest, chance of success, domestic support and the CNN effect. Two distinct patterns leading to enforcement operations are identified: one driven by national interest, the other by humanitarian sentiment. A clear case for intervention (unambiguous interstate aggression or massive human suffering) is necessary for UN Security Council authorization, but the ensuing pattern depends on whether national interests are perceived to be at stake. Governments will work hard to mobilize support and accept a significant number of casualties when national interest is at stake. Humanitarian interventions, on the contrary, are driven by a combination of the CNN effect and good chances of success, as governments are reluctant to take casualties when national interests are not involved. The analysis concludes that UN enforcement operations will be the exception to the rule in the foreseeable future, and questions the conventional assumptions that broad domestic support and national interest are necessary conditions for enforcement operations as well as the widespread belief that the CNN effect drives humanitarian interventions.