Editing Peacekeeping (section)

== Effectiveness of peacekeeping missions ==

Reviews of the academic literature show considerable evidence that peacekeeping increases peace.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Walter|first1=Barbara F.|last2=Howard|first2=Lise Morje|last3=Fortna|first3=V. Page|date=2020|title=The Extraordinary Relationship between Peacekeeping and Peace|journal=British Journal of Political Science|volume=51|issue=4|language=en|pages=1705–1722|doi=10.1017/S000712342000023X|s2cid=229469021 |issn=0007-1234|doi-access=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoeffler|first=Anke|date=March 11, 2014|title=Can international interventions secure the peace?|journal=[[International Area Studies Review]]|language=en|volume=17|issue=1|pages=75–94|doi=10.1177/2233865914525380|s2cid=16303210|url=http://www.econrsa.org/node/700}}</ref> According to Fortna, there is strong evidence that the presence of peacekeepers significantly reduces the risk of renewed warfare; more peacekeeping troops contribute to fewer battlefield deaths; and more peacekeeping troops contribute to fewer civilian deaths.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2015/09/24/enough-with-the-pessimism-about-peacekeeping/|title=Enough with the Pessimism about Peacekeeping|date=September 24, 2015|website=Political Violence at a Glance|access-date=January 26, 2017}}</ref> A study by political scientists at [[Uppsala University]] and [[Peace Research Institute Oslo]] estimates that an ambitious UN peacekeeping policy with a doubled peacekeeping operation and strong mandates would "reduce the global incidence of armed conflict by two thirds relative to a no-PKO scenario."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hegre|first1=Håvard|last2=Hultman|first2=Lisa|last3=Nygård|first3=Håvard Mokleiv|date=November 28, 2018|title=Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations|journal=The Journal of Politics|volume=81|language=en|pages=215–232|doi=10.1086/700203|s2cid=13894244|issn=0022-3816|doi-access=free}}</ref> According to Fordham University political scientist Anjali Dayal, "Scholars have found that peacekeeping keeps wars from bleeding across borders. Having more peacekeepers on the ground also seems to correspond with fewer civilians targeted with violence. And peace operations at times have successfully served as transitional authorities, handing power back to local authorities, although this is decreasingly true."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/01/is-u-n-peacekeeping-under-fire-heres-what-you-need-to-know/|title=Is U.N. peacekeeping under fire? Here's what you need to know.|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=February 1, 2017}}</ref> A 2018 study found that peacekeeping reduces the severity of civil war on its own, but when it is coupled with mediation, the impact is greater.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Mediation, Peacekeeping, and the Severity of Civil War|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=63|issue=7|pages=1682–1709|language=en|doi=10.1177/0022002718817092|year = 2018|last1 = Beardsley|first1 = Kyle|last2=Cunningham|first2=David E.|last3=White|first3=Peter B.|s2cid=202164361}}</ref> There is also evidence that the promise to deploy peacekeepers can help international organizations bring combatants to the negotiation table and increase the likelihood that they will agree to a cease-fire.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lundgren|first=Magnus|year=2016|title=Which international organizations can settle civil wars?|journal=Review of International Organizations|volume=DOI 10.1007/s11558-016-9253-0|issue=4|pages=613–641|doi=10.1007/s11558-016-9253-0|s2cid=152898046}}</ref>

By controlling for specific factors that affect where peacekeepers are deployed and what the potential chances for peace are, Page Fortna's statistical research shows that there is a statistically significant impact on lasting peace when peacekeepers are deployed. Despite the fact that peacekeepers are sent to locations where peace is least likely to succeed, Fortna finds that conservative estimates suggest that the presence of UN peacekeepers diminishes the risk for renewed violence by at least 55%-60%; with less conservative estimates upwards of 75%-85%.<ref name="Fortna 2008 116">{{Cite book|title=Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents' Choices after Civil War|last=Fortna|first=Virginia|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2008|pages=116}}</ref> Additionally, her analysis concludes that there is little difference in the effectiveness between Chapter VI consent-based missions and Chapter VII enforcement missions. Indeed, enforcement missions only remain effective if the UN peacekeeping force can prove and sustain their credibility in the [[Use of force in international law|use of force]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents' Choices after Civil War|last=Fortna|first=Virginia|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2008|pages=109, 116, 125}}</ref> This stresses the importance of a UN mission maintaining the consent of the peacekept. Ultimately, Fortna finds that peacekeeping is an effective tool for ensuring a lasting peace; especially compared to situations in which belligerents' are left to their own devices. Utilising the previously mentioned causal mechanisms for peacekeeping, a UN peacekeeping force can have a substantial and substantive impact on sustaining a lasting peace. Having a relative consensus of the positive impact of peacekeeping for ensuring a lasting peace, Fortna and Howard suggest that  the literature is moving towards the study of  i) the effectiveness of the types of peace-keepers, ii) the transitional administrations, iii) the links between peacekeeping and democratisation, and iv) the perspectives of the "peacekept".<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature*|journal = Annual Review of Political Science|volume = 11|pages = 283–301|last1=Fortna|first1=Virginia Page|last2=Howard|first2=Lise Morjé|date=May 20, 2008|language=en|doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.041205.103022|s2cid = 15740415|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Doyle and Sambanis' analysis finds that lasting peace is more likely after non-ethnic wars in countries with a relatively high level of development in addition to whether or not UN peacekeeping forces and financial assistance are available. They conclude that in the short run lasting peace is more dependent on a robust UN deployment coupled with low levels of hostility between belligerents. They note that increased economic capacity can provide an incentive not to renew hostilities. In the long run, however, economic capacity matters far more whereas the degree of hostility between belligerents is less important. As successful as UN deployments can be, they have inadequately spurred independent economic development within the countries where they have intervened. Thus, the UN plays a strong, but indirect role and success in lasting peace is predicated on the development of institutions that support peace, rather than serving as a deterrent for renewed war.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Making War and Building Peace : United Nations Peace Operations|last1=Doyle|first1=Michael W.|last2=Sambanis|first2=Nicholas|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2010|pages=336–337}}</ref>

Other scholarly analyses show varying success rates for peacekeeping missions, with estimate ranging from 31 percent to 85 percent.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Autesserre|first1=Severine|title=Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention|date=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=22}}</ref>

According to a 2020 study, non-UN peacekeeping missions are as effective as UN peacekeeping missions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bara|first1=Corinne|last2=Hultman|first2=Lisa|date=March 20, 2020|title=Just Different Hats? Comparing UN and Non-UN Peacekeeping|journal=International Peacekeeping|volume=27|issue=3|pages=341–368|doi=10.1080/13533312.2020.1737023|issn=1353-3312|doi-access=free}}</ref> Another 2020 study found that peacekeeping successfully protected civilians.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Carnegie|first1=Allison|last2=Mikulaschek|first2=Christoph|date=2020|title=The Promise of Peacekeeping: Protecting Civilians in Civil Wars|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/promise-of-peacekeeping-protecting-civilians-in-civil-wars/2BA3A91C26CF29480409B1FFB64F7E40|journal=International Organization|volume=74|issue=4|language=en|pages=810–832|doi=10.1017/S0020818320000442|s2cid=232253107|issn=0020-8183}}</ref>

A 2021 study in the ''American Journal of Political Science'' found that UN peacekeeping in South Sudan had a positive impact on the local economy.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bove|first1=Vincenzo|last2=Salvatore|first2=Jessica Di|last3=Elia|first3=Leandro|date=2021|title=UN Peacekeeping and Households' Well-Being in Civil Wars|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=402–417 |language=en|doi=10.1111/ajps.12644|issn=1540-5907|doi-access=free|hdl=10281/458537|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

=== Factors that impact lasting peace ===
There are many factors that can have a negative impact on lasting peace such as hidden information about the relative strength possessed by the belligerents; a rebel group's involvement in illicit financing through means such as through the export of diamonds and other minerals; participation in the trafficking of drugs, weapons and human beings; whether or not military victory was achieved by one side; the length of the war as well as how costly it was; commitment problems and security dilemma spirals experienced by both sides; whether a cease-fire or treaty signed by the belligerents; lack of transparency in the motives and actions carried out by belligerents in the immediate aftermath of the conflict; extremist spoilers; participants in the conflict that may benefit from its continuation; indivisibility and more.

Perhaps one of the most statistically significant contributors to a lasting peace is whether or not military victory was achieved by one side. According to Fortna's research, civil wars in which one side wins, resulting in a cease-fire or truce, have an approximately 85–90% lower chance of renewed war. Moreover, peace treaties further reduce the risk by 60–70%.<ref name="Fortna 2008 116"/>

If a group is funded by drugs, diamonds or other illicit trade then there is a substantial increase in the chance of renewed violence—100–250%—which is to say that in such circumstances war is two to three-and-a-half times more likely to begin again.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents' Choice after Civil War|last=Fortna|first=Virginia|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2008|pages=117}}</ref> While Fortna finds that wars which involve many factions are less likely to resume,<ref name=":2" /> Doyle and Sambanis find the opposite.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Making War and Building Peace : United Nations Peace Operations|last1=Doyle|first1=Michael W.|last2=Sambanis|first2=Nicholas|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2010|pages=336}}</ref>

Costly wars and wars fought along identity lines both provide varied chances of the renewal of violence. While longer wars and peace established by treaty (especially those attained by military victory) can reduce the chances of another war.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents' Choices after Civil War|last=Fortna|first=Virginia|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2008|pages=117–119}}</ref>