5Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

Anatoliy KALYAYEV

National Army Academy, Lviv

Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0002-5675-187X

toldek@ukr.net

Lesia RUDENKO

National Army Academy, Lviv

Ukraine

ORCID : 0000-0002-2768-8496

le_ru2000@yahoo.com

MILITARY-POLITICAL POTENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING

PEACE AND STABILITY BY GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

STRUCTURES (FOR EXAMPLE, THE UN)

POTENCJAŁ WOJSKOWO-POLITYCZNY W ZAKRESIE

UTRZYMANIA POKOJU I STABILNOŚCI PRZEZ GLOBALNE

STRUKTURY ZARZĄDZANIA (NA PRZYKŁADZIE ONZ)

Abstract: The article focuses on the eectiveness of global governance structures in the eld

of security against the background of increasing confrontation between powerful geopolitical

players, tensions between rich and poor countries and the struggle for resources and markets.

The aim of the article is to dene the role and outline the prospects of global security governan-

ce, in particular based on the example of relevant UN instruments. The UN Security Council is

seen as a peacekeeping instrument. Its status and powers are outlined. UN peacekeeping opera-

tions are argued for as a systemic phenomenon. Problems that negatively aect the eciency,

eectiveness and success of its peacekeeping operations and trends in the further development

of UN peacekeeping activities have been identied. The latter are called upon to be ready to

promptly address the task of neutralizing threats and avoiding military conicts. It is argued

that the security system needs to be reorganized and improved through the expansion of the

UN peacekeeping force and the creation of new joint military formations on a permanent basis.

Zarys treści: Artykuł koncentruje się na efektywności globalnych struktur zarządzania w ob-

szarze bezpieczeństwa na tle narastającej konfrontacji między potężnymi graczami geopoli-

tycznymi, napięć między krajami bogatymi i biednymi oraz walki o zasoby i rynki. Celem

5gl;;

Nr 6 ss. 5–17 2021

ISSN 2543–7321 Przyjęto: 31.01.2022

Oryginalna praca badawcza DOI: 10.34858/SNB.6.2021.001

STUDIA NAD BEZPIECZEŃSTWEM

6Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

artykułu jest określenie roli i zarysowanie perspektyw globalnego zarządzania bezpieczeń-

stwem, w szczególności na przykładzie odpowiednich instrumentów ONZ. Rada Bezpie-

czeństwa ONZ jest postrzegana jako instrument utrzymywania pokoju. Nakreślono jej status

i uprawnienia. Operacje pokojowe ONZ są uważane za zjawisko systemowe. Zidentykowano

problemy, które negatywnie wpływają na skuteczność i powodzenie operacji pokojowych oraz

tendencje w dalszym rozwoju działań pokojowych sił ONZ. Te ostatnie powinny być gotowe

do szybkiego podjęcia zadania neutralizacji zagrożeń i unikania koniktów zbrojnych. Twier-

dzi się, że system bezpieczeństwa wymaga reorganizacji i usprawnienia poprzez rozbudowę sił

pokojowych ONZ oraz tworzenie nowych wspólnych formacji wojskowych na stałe.

Key words: national security, military security, global governance, collective security, peaceke-

eping activities, UN peacekeeping operations, public administration in the sphere of military

security

Słowa kluczowe: bezpieczeństwo narodowe, bezpieczeństwo wojskowe, globalny ład, bez-

pieczeństwo zbiorowe, działania pokojowe, operacje pokojowe ONZ, administracja publiczna

w sferze bezpieczeństwa wojskowego

Introduction

The settlement of military conicts, which in modern conditions have become

multifaceted and complex, is determined not only by considerations of humanity.

Emergencies pose a particular threat to peace and have a destabilizing eect on the

socio-economic and political situation of neighbouring countries and entire regions.

Modern military conicts are characterized by dynamism, which is accompanied by

mass deaths and suering of civilians. The rapid escalation of humanitarian problems

requires the mobilization of substantial nancial resources to address them, which

signicantly aects the potential for socio-economic development. Peacekeeping

operations that have been so actively performed recently are a hot topic for political

and scientic debate.

The degree of scientic development of peacekeeping activity issues is determined

by the publications of international centres for international relations and peace issues

studies, such as the International Peace Academy (IPA), the UN Institute for Disarma-

ment Research and International Relations (UNIDIR), etc. The list of Ukrainians who

have signicantly contributed to the study of various peacekeeping issues includes

such scientists as A.V. Wojciechowski, O. Gogosha, V. Klyuyev, O. Kovtun, A. Lega

and V. Lysak. Among foreign authors should be mentioned Nsia-Pepra K., Hudson J.,

Hultman L., Kathman J., Hegre H., Hultman L., Beardsley K. and Bah S. etc.

At the same time, given the dynamic changes in international relations, many

aspects of this discourse remain unattended, which motivates the chosen topic.

Under the UN Charter, the primary responsibility for maintaining international

peace and security rests with the UN Security Council, which decides on the deploy-

ment of groups and missions to areas of armed conict or on the conduct of peaceke-

eping operations by military contingents of UN member states under the auspices

of the United Nations. The Security Council has the right to use the armed forces

7Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

for implementation of its decisions to eliminate the threat to or any breach of peace

(i.e. military coercion). This can be expressed by participation in battles and in the

forceful division of warring parties, etc. The relevant provisions of the UN Charter

play an important preventive role. There are no military units within the UN. In cer-

tain cases this compels it to turn to some countries or international organizations (such

as NATO) that are able to implement Security Council decisions. States may also use

their armed forces to ensure individual or collective self-defence (Article 5 of the

UN Charter).1

The United Nations Armed Forces are the combined forces of the United Nations

member states. The UN Armed Forces are called upon to provide military measures

in the framework of coercive actions of its members in accordance with Chapter 7 of

the UN Charter established and implemented by the UN Security Council (UNSC)

in cases where it recognizes any threat to peace, any breach of peace aggression and

in this regard takes the appropriate decision in order to maintain or restore peace and

security (Article 39).2 The aim of the current article is to dene the role and outline

the prospects of global security governance, in particular based on the example of

relevant UN instruments.

UN Security Council as a tool for peacekeeping: status and powers

The UN Armed Forces are applied in exceptional cases when other measures may

prove or have proved ineective. According to Article 43 of the UN Charter, all UN

member states are obliged to make available to the Security Council, at its request and

in accordance with special agreements, the national military contingents, assistance

and means of service necessary for maintaining international peace and security, in-

cluding the right to pass through a certain territory. Such agreements determine the

number and type of troops, the degree of readiness and their location as well as the

nature of means of service and assistance provided by them. Article 42 of the UN

Charter authorizes the Security Council to use military action by air, land forces and

naval forces. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockades and other opera-

tions. Assistance to the UN Security Council in all matters relating to the military

needs of peacekeeping forces, the use of troops transferred to its command, and their

command, is provided by the Military Sta Committee. This consists of the Chiefs of

Sta of the permanent members of the UN Security Council or their representatives.

In addition, any UN member can be invited to cooperate with the Committee.3

The confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union did not al-

low the use of the mechanism of creation and functioning of the UN Armed Forces

as part of the global system of collective security. Under the principle of unanimity

of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the adoption of such decisions

1 United Nations Charter, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_010 [access: 02.03.2022].

2 Ibidem.

3 UN Security Council Resolutions(1992 р.),.http:// www.un.org/ru/sc/documents/resolutions/ [ac-

cess: 02.03.2022].

8Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

depended entirely on the coincidence of their interests in situations related to the need

to maintain or restore peace. Therefore, during the period of confrontation between

the two systems, the UN Security Council did not endorse any decision on the estab-

lishment of the UN Armed Forces, which made it impossible for the Military Sta

Committee to function in its role of a global strategic planning body. Numerous armed

conicts that arose during this period in various parts of the world, contrary to the UN

Charter prohibiting states’ use of force in resolving disputes, called on the UN to take

measures to end conicts that threatened peace and security of nations.

Therefore, the international community has chosen the way of establishing and

operating within and under the UN command of peacekeeping forces, recognized as

military contingents of UN member states, designated by the UN Charter to prevent

or eliminate threats to peace and security through joint coercive action (military de-

monstration, blockade etc.), if measures of economic and political nature prove or

have proved insucient. They acted in areas of armed conicts on the basis of va-

rious functional mandates issued by the UN Security Council in order to separate

the military contingents of the warring parties and create favourable conditions for

diplomatic measures aimed at ending those conicts. The above UN practice, based

on the decisions of the UN Security Council, is an important international experien-

ce in resolving modern armed conicts of diverse nature. It gave a new meaning to

the competence of the Security Council and the Secretary General, based on the po-

wers of the United Nations. Since then, the activities of the Security Council and the

UN Secretary General in this area have been called UN peacekeeping operations.

The dynamics of the international situation in the postwar world required the im-

plementation of various peacekeeping tasks. For this purpose the following were crea-

ted: the UN Emergency Force in Egypt (1965–1967), the UN Armed Forces in Congo

(1960–1964) and Cyprus (since 1964), the UN Emergency Force in the Middle East

(1973–1979), the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) (Israel and Syria,

since 1974), the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (since 1978), etc.

Since the 1990s UN peacekeeping operations have acquired new features. Thus,

during the protracted armed conict in the former Yugoslavia (1991), the Security Co-

uncil signicantly expanded the mandate of UN peacekeeping forces and gave them

the right to use force on a large scale if necessary. Apart from this, it was the rst time

when, under the UN ag, military contingents of NATO member states composed

into a special Task Force comprising air force units have been deployed to resolve

a regional conict.4 After the end of the Cold War, more than 20 new operations were

conducted, which led to an increase in the number of peacekeepers from 11,000 to

75,000. In particular, ‘Blue helmets’ were engaged in countries such as Angola, Cam-

bodia, El Salvador, Mozambique and Namibia.

Signicant innovations were also inherent in the decision of the UN Security Co-

uncil. For example, in the situation concerning the 1990 Gulf crisis caused by Iraq’s

4 A. Kalyayev, L. Novak-Kalyayeva, T. Stukalin, V. Motornyy, L. Rudenko, Imperatives of global

governance in the eld of military security: the European context and Ukraine /Proceedings

of the 38th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA)

23–24 November 2021, Sevilla, Spain, p. 1560–1569, ISSN: 2767-9640.

9Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

aggression against Kuwait, the UN Security Council described it as an act of aggres-

sion and ordered Iraq to end the occupation of Kuwait’s territory immediately. Iraq’s

failure to comply with a legitimate demand from the international community led to

the imposition by the UN Security Council of comprehensive economic sanctions

against Iraq and gave NATO troops a mandate to conduct military operations in the re-

gion. The military contingents were given the authority to use all necessary means to

restore peace and security in the Persian Gulf region that culminated in the liberation

of Kuwait and the restoration of its sovereignty. The UN Security Council ordered

Iraq, under UN supervision, to eliminate chemical and bacteriological weapons, mis-

siles with a range of more than 150 km and equipment for their production.

The conict in the former Yugoslavia led to NATO’s unilateral action through

peacekeeping operations, which were only ex post facto approved by the UN Security

Council. After working together with the United Nations to achieve peace in Bosnia,

NATO created its own Peace Implementation Force in 1995 and the Stabilization For-

ce in 1996 in order to ensure peace and pave the way for reconstruction of Bosnia and

stabilization in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The results of the Gulf War and the

crises in Bosnia and Kosovo show that the system of collective global security has not

yet received the necessary level of support among UN member states. The Security

Council has failed to eectively apply the provisions of Chapter 7 of the UN Char-

ter, especially those concerning its full responsibility for the creation and use of the

UN Armed Forces to maintain or restore international peace (Encyclopaedia of Mo-

dern Ukraine). Peacekeepers failed in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia,

where they did not manage to establish peace. The number of civilian casualties conti-

nued to rise and hostilities continued, damaging the UN’s reputation for peacekeeping.

UN peacekeeping operations as a systemic phenomenon

At the beginning of the 21st century there was an increasing involvement of regio-

nal organizations in UN peacekeeping operations. According to the Research Center

for International Cooperation (University of New York), ‘blue helmets’ are the basis

of all peacekeeping operations in the world and constitute 48% of all peacekeeping

forces whilst NATO, by this indicator, holds second place with 38%. S. Bah and

B. Jones, the authors of the study ‘Peace Partnerships. Lessons and tasks of coordi-

nation in hybrid activities.’5 suggested the following classication of peacekeeping

operations involving the UN and regional organizations:

▪ ‘replacement operations’ – peacekeepers of one organization replace peaceke-

epers of another. In East Timor, for example, at the beginning an internatio-

nal force with an Australian core was deployed which later was substituted by

a UN force. In Liberia, the peacekeeping function was initially performed by

5 A. Sarjoh Bah and Bruce D. Jones, Peace Operations Partnerships: Lessons and Issues from

Coordination to Hybrid Arrangements, A. Sarjoh Bah and Bruce D. Jones; Center on interna-

tional cooperation. http://www.cic.nyu.edu/internationalse-urity/docs/peace_hybrid.pdf, [access:

02.03.2022].

10 Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

ECOWAS vanguard force representatives, and later the UN took over the ope-

ration. In the same way, NATO, UN and EU contingents gradually replaced

each other in the Balkans;

▪ ‘parallel operations’ – dierent structures operate simultaneously in the same

territory and their actions are not coordinated, for example, in Côte d’Ivoire

(UN and France), Congo (EU and UN), Kosovo (UN and NATO) and Afgha-

nistan (NATO, UN and US);

▪ ‘integrated operations’ – dierent peacekeepers have joint command, this is

one form that is rarely used.6

1. Studies of the eectiveness of security (peacekeeping) missions suggest that

not all of them are equally eective. Currently, such missions are classied

according to the type of mandate:

2. Monitoring missions – with a mandate to monitor the ceasere, withdrawal

of troops, demilitarization and the situation on the demarcation line. They are

always deployed with the consent of the parties to the conict.

3. Traditional missions – are also deployed by agreement of the parties, but with

an extended mandate, namely: police powers in the buer zone and assistance

in negotiating a peace agreement.

4. Multidimensional missions, or so-called ‘second generation operations’,

– their mandates are determined by agreement of the parties and relate to the

roots of the conict: economic reconstruction and institutional transformations

(reforms of the police, army, judiciary, elections).

5. Coercive missions, “third generation operations,” – do not require the consent

of the parties to the conict and are based on Articles 25, 42 and 43 of the

UN Charter on the Use of Force to Ensure Implementation of the Operation

Purpose.7

It should be noted that unarmed or lightly armed missions with limited mandates

have little eect on maintaining peace. In contrast, multidimensional missions or co-

ercive missions are signicantly more eective for the process of peacekeeping. This

is particularly true of missions which operate while the conict is still ongoing. The

limited mandate of unarmed or lightly armed missions not only does not contribute to

the peace process, but may even increase levels of aggression, for example, against

civilian populations.

Up to now, many operations have completed their mandates, including the UN

missions in the Central African Republic and Chad, in Congo, Burundi, Sierra Leone,

Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and Côte d’Ivoire. Today, the United Nations is conducting

6 O. Kovtun, UN peacekeeping activities in the XXI century. Current issues of international rela-

tions 2011, Vip. 96 (1), pp. 118–122, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/apmv_2011_96%281%29__20,

[access: 02.03.2022].

7 D. Gaidai, K. Zarembo, L. Litra, O. Lymar, J. Litvinenko, I. Medinsky, Peacekeeping mission

in Donbass: what the world experience tells Ukraine. European truth, March 18, 2016, https://

www.eurointegration.com.ua/articles/2016/03/18/7046393/, [access: 22.03.2022].

11Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

14 peacekeeping operations in Congo, the Central African Republic, Western Sahara,

Syria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Kosovo, India and Pakistan, as well as in the Middle East. Mo-

dern multidimensional UN peacekeeping operations are expected to promote political

processes, protect civilians, assist in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of

ex-combatants, assist in elections, protect human rights and restore the rule of law.

Recently, peacekeeping contingents have been reducing their numbers due to par-

tial underfunding of missions. For example, in 2019 only 129 out of 193 countries met

their nancial obligations, and the United States is the largest debtor. The budget for

UN peacekeeping missions is formed separately and in 2019 it amounted to 6.7 billion

dollars, while in 2020 it was 6.5 billion dollars.

As of September 2019, the total number of personnel involved in contemporaneo-

us UN operations was 84,382. There were 84392 military and police personnel, inclu-

ding servicemen (71,830), police (9,261), military observers (1,204) and sta ocers

(2,087). It should be noted that the civilian sta was 12,893, of which 4,500 were

international sta and 8,393 local sta. So far, 122 countries have provided military

and police personnel. 1,542 people have died in the ongoing peacekeeping missions.

In total, since the beginning of the peacekeeping missions in 1948, the United Nations

has conducted 71 peacekeeping operations.8

The UN peacekeeping forces tend to play an important role in resolving local con-

icts on religious and ethnic grounds that threaten peace and integrity of states. The

importance of the UN role in the settlement of non-international conicts is growing,

which represents a new direction in its activities. The UN peacemaking and peaceke-

eping mechanisms are now gaining in importance and obtaining new applications.

However, many foreign experts are inclined to believe that international peacekeeping

operations, despite changing some approaches, do not change their nature.9 They re-

main an eective political tool for resolving military-political conicts, which ensures

solving a set of tasks that no single state can solve separately.

At the present stage, UN peacekeeping operations can be divided into two types:

peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement operations.

The UN Armed Forces must be impartial while conducting peacekeeping opera-

tions that help to reduce conicts and resolve and eliminate their consequences.

The objectives of peace support operations are: observation of the compliance with

the terms of the armistice, ceasere or hostilities; ensuring separation between the armed

forces in conict; assisting the legitimate government in preventing armed interference

from outside or eliminating the consequences of such interference; prevention of further

internationalization of the conict; human rights monitoring; creation or restoration of

infrastructure and assistance in providing humanitarian aid. About 40 peace support

operations have been conducted during the UN’s existence. These have required about

1 million military, police and civilian personnel from 68 countries.

8 S. Bah, Peace Operations Partnerships: Lessons and Issues from Coordination to Hybrid Ar-

rangements, A. Sarjoh Bah and Bruce D. Jones; Center on international cooperation, http://www.

cic.nyu.edu/internationalse-urity/docs/peace_hybrid.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

9 O. Gogosha, Evolution of UN peacekeeping activities at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, http://

www.pdaa.com.ua/np/pdf5/1.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

12 Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

The next type of UN peacekeeping operations, peace enforcement operations, are

combat operations by UN forces made up of contingents provided by member states.

Coercion is permissible both to counteract armed aggression and to enforce imple-

mentation of Security Council decisions in critical cases, which is by no means equi-

valent to resolving conicts and assisting in reaching agreements between the parties

in conict. Coercive peace operations, which are military in nature, are a ‘last resort’.

The basis for the use of force is the escalation of civil and interstate conicts, ethnic

and religious violence which aects countries from within. The main task of such

operations is to stop the bloodshed in the event of aggression, to create conditions for

peace talks or to end the genocide of civilians. In modern scientic literature on pea-

cekeeping issues such operations are called ‘humanitarian intervention’.10

Сhallenges that negatively aect the eectiveness, eciency and success

of peacekeeping operations

Over the past two decades the UN peacekeeping forces have worked eectively

to establish peace and resolve conicts in many parts of the world. Thanks to their

operations, the UN was able to transform 4–5 major conicts into minor ones. The UN

operations have helped thousands of refugees (Hegre et al., 2018), they also preven-

ted outbreaks or recurrence of conicts.11 Over and above, they help to end ghting

or reduce the intensity of violence in conicts.12 They have been eective in ceasing

combat between hostile parties, decreasing violence through geographical deterrence,

reducing the duration of conict at the local level and also successful in combating

violence against civilians. Peacekeeping operations have also helped limit the spatial

and temporal threat of conict and eectively reduced the probability of conict in

neighbouring areas. Hegre also accentuates that although UN peacekeeping policy

was eective, the UN could have performed much better if it had been willing to

spend more on peacekeeping by expanding mandates of peacekeeping missions.13

At the same time, the UN faces challenges that negatively aect the eectiveness,

eciency and success of its peacekeeping operations. Thus, the shortcomings and

problems of the political, military and humanitarian aspects of the operations have ne-

gatively aected peacekeeping operations in order to successfully achieve their goals.

Political instability of the post-conict situation, the political will of the host country

10 Ya.M. Lysak, International legal bases of application of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

abroad and problems of their implementation on the example of peacekeeping operations in

Yugoslavia and Iraq. Legal Bulletin 2014, № 2 (31), pp. 46–50.

11 H. Hegre, L. Hultman & H.M. Nygard, Evaluating the conict-reducing eect of UN peacekeep-

ing operations, 2018, https://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/653/c_653796-l_1-k_pko_prediction_

preprint_main.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

12 K. Beardsley & K.S. Gleditsch, Peacekeeping as conict containment, “International Studies

Review” 2015, №17(1), p. 67–89.

13 H. Hegre, L. Hultman & H.M. Nygard, Evaluating the conict-reducing eect of UN peacekeep-

ing operations, 2018, https://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/653/c_653796-l_1-k_pko_prediction_

preprint_main.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

13Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

and the signicant nancial and logistical support of the UN agencies are among the

important factors undermining the smooth functioning of peacekeeping. Political and

nancial support of the superpowers and members of the UN Council is another issue

that truly challenges peacekeeping. Without the political support of the ve permanent

members of the Security Council and, in particular, the logistical, nancial and poli-

tical support of the United States, no operation has been successfully completed. At

the same time, the political commitment of the host country is also very much needed

in a peacekeeping operation. Military issues also complicate UN peacekeeping ope-

rations. Military personnel and their behaviour in peacekeeping operations aect the

outcome of operations.

The inadequate size of peacekeeping forces is a major military issue of UN pea-

cekeeping operations. In addition, peacekeepers simply monitor the implementation

of the ceasere and ceasere agreements and do not have the authority to open re.

They cannot stop genocide or human rights violations.

The internal coordination of multinational force operations leads to many commu-

nication and logistics problems. Lack of cultural understanding of local conditions,

combined with an ineective mission, undermines eorts of local police and other

services to restore the rule of law. Low police standards of the international contingent

can have a devastating eect on peace operations. According to J. Hansen, ‘perhaps

the most serious consequence is the loss of faith, respect and trust among indigenous

police and population.’14 Illegal actions, human rights violation and abuses of for-

ce are also issues that challenge UN peacekeeping operations. Some peacekeeping

contingents were guilty of gross misconduct, such as abuse of locals, drug use and

arms and human tracking, etc. Ineciency and corruption also aect the credibility

of UN peacekeeping operations.

The UN’s structural weakness is another important issue in maintaining peace. The

UN weakness in integrated planning mechanisms, outdated procurement procedures,

funding crises, and shortages of personnel, specialized units and technologies as well

as shortcomings in logistics and transport have all contributed to the development of

critical situations in UN peacekeeping operations, especially in operations involving

disarmament and demobilization of local troops. The distribution of aid is also com-

plicated due to the lack of assistance and problem coordination of UN peacekeeping

forces.15 In a protracted civil war, it is very dicult for peacekeepers to carry out huma-

nitarian tasks. The seizure of humanitarian and medical supplies, kidnapping, hostage-

-taking and killing of workers are among the major challenges peacekeepers face.

Maintaining peace is a risky endeavour. Thus, between 1948 and 2017 more than

3,500 employees of peacekeeping contingents lost their lives in UN peacekeeping

operations. Fatalities are high because the UN and its Member States cannot ad-

opt and take the necessary measures that would allow for safe work in hazardous

14 J. Hunsen, The Future of Reserve Currencies, University of Bath 2017, https://www.imf.org/

external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/09/pdf/cohen.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

15 A. Morrison, S. Cumner, H. Park & K.A. Zoe, Peacekeeping. [In:] Encyclopedia of violence,

peace, and conict, L. Kurtz (ed.). London: Academic Press 1999. pp. 735–753, [access:

02.03.2022].

14 Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

environments. As S. Cruz noted, if the UN and the troops or police of the country whe-

re the conict takes place do not take responsibility for the deaths of peacekeeping

personnel, this trend will constantly compromise the mandate of the UN peacekeeping

operation.16

Tendencies in further development of UN peacekeeping activities

Tendencies in the development of UN peacekeeping activities are quite controver-

sial. On the one hand, the new environment provides more opportunities to stop and

resolve conicts at all stages of their development, and the range of tools for this is

signicantly expanded. However, some points are alarming:

▪ lack of a detailed international legal framework;

▪ inability to nd consensus on the basic principles of peacekeeping;

▪regulatory gaps in the relationship between the UN and regional organizations.

Further development of the institutional system for the implementation of plan-

ned peacekeeping initiatives is still one of the urgent issues of reforming UN

peacekeeping activities,. In particular, at the beginning of the century new institu-

tions began their work, namely: the Department of Peace Support Operations, the

Department of Field Support (the decision to establish a eld support department

was made in 2007), the Peacebuilding Commission (established in 2006) – an in-

tergovernmental advisory body (coordinates actions, including those of relevant

parties, donors, international nancial institutions, national governments and

troop-contributing states; mobilizes resources; proposes comprehensive post-

-conict peacebuilding and reconstruction strategies), the Peacebuilding Fund,

and the Oce for Peacebuilding Support (should coordinate the UN agencies’

eorts), headed by the UN Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Assistant.17

In the 21st century the following documents have been adopted: Resolution of the

Security Council on Acts of Sexual Violence against Civilians in Armed Conicts

(2008), “General Doctrine” of the PSO (‘United Nations Peacekeeping Operations:

Principles and Guidelines’ or Capstone Doctrine, 2008) – an attempt to codify the

existing experience of PSO, developed by the Department of Peacekeeping Opera-

tions in close cooperation with the Department of Field Support, Member States and

UN agencies, in connection with the need to articulate the doctrinal principles of the

PSO given the changes in the current system of international relations, although it is

an internal UN publication; UN Security Council Resolution 1674 on the Protection

16 V.G. Zgurovets, L.V. Safoshkina, V.V. Kalachova, Prospects of peacekeeping activity of Ukraine

and ways to improve the mechanism of legal regulation of participation of the Armed Forces of

Ukraine in peacekeeping operations, “Honor and law” 2020, № 1 (72) / 2020, pp. 40–44, http://

chiz.nangu.edu.ua/issue/view/12267/6329, [access: 02.03.2022].

17 V. Filipchuk, Preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peace support and peacebuilding in the set-

tlement of the Ukrainian conict, Kyiv 2016, 44 p., http://www.icps.com.ua//eu/.pdf, [access:

02.03.2022].

15Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

of Civilians in armed conict (2006); UN Security Council Resolution 1612 on Chil-

dren and armed conict (2005); adopted due to the fact that in the 1990s up to 2 mil-

lion children died and 6 million were injured in armed conicts; UN Security Council

Resolution 1325 ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (2000), as well as the UN Security

Council’s mandates for the PSO’s conduct, which expand and clarify the tasks and

functions of peacekeeping contingents and personnel in the event of a case-by-case

settlement. It is the bedrock for the development, in particular, of the Directives on the

Use of Force for the Police Component and the Rules of Engagement for the Military

Component.18

Thus, the existing peacekeeping experience objectively determines the need to re-

form the organization in the eld, which is a priority in accordance with the principles

and objectives dened in the UN Charter. The implementation of this reform should

occur in several dimensions: institutional, conceptual and operational. Standardiza-

tion and automation of existing operational procedures and the development and re-

gulation of work on new peacekeeping mechanisms will increase the eectiveness of

peacekeeping eorts of the organization.19

Conclusions

One of the main problems in UN peacekeeping operations is the non-existence of

a permanent UN peacekeeping force. In our opinion, in view of the escalation of con-

icts and their changing nature, a special UN peacekeeping force should be formed

on a permanent basis, with a suitably trained contingent of troops, civilian personnel

and other resources.

The conceptual restructuring of UN peacekeeping activities should also focus on

the above in advance. The mandate of peacekeeping missions or operations must also

have a clear and achievable mission, which must include strategies for achieving su-

stainable peace. It is also necessary to nd an integrated and complex approach which

emphasizes the importance of partnership and political cooperation with regional and

subregional organizations to support UN peacekeeping operations. This approach will

strengthen the coherence between political, military and humanitarian activities rela-

ted to UN peacekeeping activities in the future.

18 UN Security Council Resolutions (1992 р.), http:// www.un.org/ru/sc/documents/resolutions/.

19 O. Kovtun, UN peacekeeping activities in the XXI century, “Current issues of international rela-

tions” 2011, Vip. 96 (1), pp. 118–122, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/apmv_2011_96%281%29__20,

[access: 02.03.2022].

16 Anatoliy Kalyayev, Lesia Rudenko

Bibliography

Bah S., Peace Operations Partnerships: Lessons and Issues from Coordination to Hybrid Ar-

rangements/ A. Sarjoh Bah, Bruce D. Jones, “Center on international cooperation”, http://

www.cic.nyu.edu/internationalse-urity/docs/peace_hybrid.pdf.

Beardsley K. & Gleditsch K.S., Peacekeeping as conict containment. “International Studies

Review”, 2015, № 17 (1).

Filipchuk V., Preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peace support and peacebuilding in the

settlement of the Ukrainian conict, Kyiv 2016, http://www.icps.com.ua//eu/.pdf, [access:

02.03.2022].

Gaidai D., Zarembo K., Litra L., Lymar O., Litvinenko J., Medinsky I., Peacekeeping mission

in Donbass: what the world experience tells Ukraine, “European truth”, March 18, 2016,

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/articles/2016/03/18/7046393/, [access: 02.03.2022].

Gogosha O., Evolution of UN peacekeeping activities at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries,

http://www.pdaa.com.ua/np/pdf5/1.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

Gogosha O., Formation of the concept and principles of UN peacekeeping, “Bulletin of Lviv

University. Series: International Relations”, 2012, Vip. 30, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/

VLNU_Mv_2012_30_16, [access: 02.03.2022].

Hegre H., Hultman L. & Nygard H.M., Evaluating the conict-reducing eect of UN peaceke-

eping operations, 2018, https://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/653/c_653796-l_1-k_pko_

prediction_preprint_main.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

Hudson J., University of Bath, The Future of Reserve Currencies, 2017, https://www.imf.org/

external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/09/pdf/cohen.pdf, [access: 02.03.2022].

Hultman L., Kathman J. & Shannon M., Beyond keeping peace: United Nations eectiveness

in the midst of ghting, “American Political Science Review” 2014, No. 108(4).

Kalyayev A., Novak-Kalyayeva L., Stukalin T., Motornyy V., Rudenko L. Imperatives of glo-

bal governance in the eld of military security: the European context and Ukraine, /Pro-

ceedings of the 38th International Business Information Management Association Confe-

rence (IBIMA) 23–24 November 2021, Sevilla, Spain, ISSN: 2767-9640.

Klyuyev K.G., International peacekeeping operations as a political tool for resolving military-

-political conicts, “Political science” 2016, № 10 (37).

Kovtun O., UN peacekeeping activities in the XXI century, “Current issues of international

relations” 2011, Vip. 96 (1), http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/apmv_2011_96%281%29__20,

[access: 02.03.2022].

Lega A.Yu., The essence of peacekeeping operations (peacekeeping operations). http://www.

rusnauka.com/14_APSN_2008/Istoria/32133.doc.htm.

Lysak Ya M., International legal bases of application of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

abroad and problems of their implementation on the example of peacekeeping operations

in Yugoslavia and Iraq, “Legal Bulletin” 2014, № 2 (31).

Morrison A., Cumner S., Park H. & Zoe K.A., Peacekeeping, [In:] Encyclopedia of violence,

peace, and conict, L. Kurtz (ed.), London: Academic Press 1999.

NATO operations, Kyiv: Knowledge TV of Ukraine 2007, ISBN 978-966-618-249-7.

Nsia-Pepra K., UN robust peacekeeping: civilian protection in violent civil war, New York:

Palgrave Macmillan 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137463135.

On the Strategy of International Peacekeeping Activities of Ukraine: Decree of the President

of Ukraine of June 15, 2009 № 435–2009. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435/2009,

[access: 02.03.2022].

17Military-political potential for maintaining peace and stability by global governance...

UN Security Council Resolutions (1992 р.). http:// www.un.org/ru/sc/documents/resolutions/,

[access: 02.03.2022].

United Nations Charter, http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_010.

Wojciechowski A.V., Cybersecurity as an important component of the national securi-

ty protection system of European countries, “Journal of Eastern European Law” 2018,

№ 53, http://easternlaw.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/voytsikhovskyy_53.pdf, [ac-

cess: 02.03.2022].

Zarembo K., Strategic partnerships without strategy, or Why this tool does not work in

Ukraine’s favor, http://www.day.kiev.ua/uk/article/panorama-dnya/strategichni- partner-

stva-bez-strategiyi, [access: 02.03.2022].

Zgurovets V.G., Safoshkina L.V., Kalachova V.V., Prospects of peacekeeping activity of Ukra-

ine and ways to improve the mechanism of legal regulation of participation of the Armed

Forces of Ukraine in peacekeeping operations, “Honor and law” 2020, № 1 (72) / 2020,

http://chiz.nangu.edu.ua/issue/view/12267/6329.

Summary

UN peacekeeping is considered a priority given the principles and objectives set out in its

Charter. UN peacekeeping operations, which are generally intended to ensure the maintenance

and enforcement of peace, have become an integral part of the military-political capacity to

maintain peace and stability in global governance structures. Despite negative assessments of

some peacekeeping practices in the second half of the 20th century, no other way to improve

the latter has yet been found. Changes in the nature of armed conict at the beginning of the

21st century aect the activities of peacekeeping contingents, in terms of strengthening requi-

rements and expanding their tasks. The generalization of peacekeeping experience objectively

conrms the need for its reform in institutional, conceptual and operational dimensions. Stan-

dardization and technology of existing procedures, development and regulation of innovative

legal mechanisms of UN peacekeeping activities will contribute to increasing eectiveness in

the implementation of modern strategies for achieving lasting peace.