1 1. Peacekeeping as rule-based interventions in international relations Han Dorussen Peacekeeping is best understood in the context of international politics, and the study of peace- keeping therefore within International Relations research. Yet, compared to topics such as alliances, balance of power, arms races, or even the democratic peace and diplomacy, scholars have started paying serious attention to the study of peacekeeping only fairly recently. 1 It is helpful to distinguish theoretical, practical, and data-driven concerns as plausible explana- tions for the late emergence of peacekeeping as a field of study in International Relations as well as the current “boom” in academic output as reflected in this Handbook. International Relations (IR) theory and peacekeeping Peacekeeping was unlikely to draw major scholarly attention as long as IR theory remained firmly committed to analyzing power as the main feature of inter-state relations embedded in an anarchical international system. In contrast, peacekeeping is defined as consent-based, impartial interventions with limited military capability. Furthermore, peacekeeping operations derive their legitimacy from how they are authorized and mandated with, since the end of the Second World War, a central role for the United Nations Security Council. In short, peacekeeping is an example of a rule-based intervention in international politics. Studying peacekeeping operations implies an implicit acknowledgement that international organizations matter – also in how they promote norms in international politics – that states pursue interests that go beyond maximizing power, and that they are, at least occasionally, willing to restrict their sovereignty. Unsurprisingly, earlier studies of peacekeeping tended to focus on the role of the Security Council, in particular the Permanent Five members (China, France, UK, USA, and USSR/ Russia), in failing to authorize peacekeeping operations, or to provide them with effective mandates and sufficient resources. Liberal approaches to IR create more space for studying peacekeeping. Firstly, they allow for a broader definition of power. In Power in Peacekeeping, Howard (2019) identifies six ways in which peacekeepers can influence outcomes based on their access to information, their expert knowledge, their referent – relationship-based – and legitimate power, along with their power to provide incentive and to coerce. Liberal IR theories have also drawn attention to the role of domestic and transnational audiences and institutions in explaining political decisions, including decisions on deploying peacekeepers. Consequently, expanding beyond traditional state security, they also consider economic and normative concerns as relevant state interests. Moreover, peacekeeping itself has been defined as a part of a Liberal agenda promoting inclusive democratic institutions and “good governance” internationally. Conceptualizing the Liberal approach to peacebuilding, Doyle and Sambanis (2000; 2006) introduce the “Peacebuilding Triangle,” identifying the political space or effective capacity for building peace along three dimensions: international capacity, the legacy of conflict, and local capacity. Accordingly, mandated operations indicate international commitment to a sustainable peace: ‘[i]nternational commitment (or lack thereof) interacts with local capacities and factional Han Dorussen - 9781839109935 Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 12/10/2023 04:14:30PM via free access