The Commonwealth, gender and peacekeeping

Reflecting on the strategic commitment outlined in the Plan of Action for Gender Equality (2005-2015) and the priority issues of the Commonwealth Women’s Forum, this article assesses the extent to which the Commonwealth as an institution is supporting troop and police-contributing member states in addressing the gender imbalance in peacekeeping operations. Drawing on desk-based research, interviews with international policymakers and a statistical analysis of the International Peace Institute Peacekeeping Database, the article first outlines the Commonwealth’s gender and security policy perspective before examining data sets to determine the success of Commonwealth member states in integrating women into uniformed peacekeeping contingencies between 2009 and 2015. The article observes that, in spite of a renewed optimism and drive to propel women into leadership positions in politics, the judiciary, public bodies and private companies, security sector reform and the implementation of pillar one of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, is notably absent from the Commonwealth’s gender agenda. It is argued that this policy gap suggests that national and international security architecture is regarded as an accepted domain of masculine privilege. A lack of political will among Commonwealth Heads of Government to mainstream gender equality and facilitate structural transformation of national security organs, and a chronically under resourced Commonwealth Secretariat limits the influence of the institution to that of arms-length promoter of international norms on women, peace and security.

The United Nations and the African Union: Assessing a partnership for peace in Darfur

In Resolution 1556, the Security Council, with the conflict in Darfur clearly in mind, determined that the ‘situation in Sudan constitutes a threat to international peace and security and to stability in the region’. This article focuses on the response by the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, and the African Union to the Darfur conflict. It begins by exploring the role of peacekeeping operations and regional arrangements or agencies in the overarching architecture of international peace and security. Having laid this frame of reference, it then looks at the modalities of peacekeeping in Darfur. These operations began with the African Union acting in isolation but have transitioned to an increasingly important role being played by the United Nations and a hybrid peacekeeping presence. Finally, this article asks whether, assuming that a legally dispositive conclusion can be drawn that genocide has taken place in Darfur since the outbreak of hostilities there in 2003, there exists a legal justification, or even obligation, for non-compliance by states with the sanctions regime established by Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1591. This regime of sanctions has played an important part in the Security Council's approach to Darfur but has been, unfortunately, left largely unexamined from the standpoint of international legality.

Incorporating languages into histories of war: a research journey

This article discusses the ways in which languages can be integrated into histories of war and conflict, by exploring ongoing research in two case studies: the liberation and occupation of Western Europe (1944–47), and peacekeeping/peace building in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1995–2000). The article suggests that three methodological approaches have been of particular value in this research: adopting an historical framework; following the “translation” of languages into war situations; and contextualizing the figure of the interpreter/translator. The process of incorporating languages into histories of conflict, the article argues, has helped to uncover a broader languages landscape within the theatres of war.

Whose peace? Local ownership and UN peacebuilding

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the participation of national actors in United Nations peace operations, reflecting what has become a near orthodox commitment to ‘local ownership.’ Advocates of local ownership assert that it: (1) increases the legitimacy of UN peacebuilding efforts; (2) increases the sustainability of peacebuilding activities after the departure of the UN; and (3) increases democratic governance in post-conflict states. While such thinking about local ownership has informed UN peacebuilding policy to a large extent, the UN has, to date, assumed these positive benefits without critically examining the causal mechanisms that allegedly produce them, specifying the conditions under which this correlation holds, or providing convincing evidence for these assertions. Moreover, exactly what local ownership is, what is being owned, and who local ‘owners’ are remain unclear. Indeed a closer examination of ownership’s relation with legitimacy, sustainability, and democratization reveal a plethora of contradictions that imply that local ownership may in fact decrease the UN’s ability to deliver peacekeeping results. Crucially, however, the UN persists in adopting a local ownership approach to peacebuilding, suggesting that it does so because it is normatively appropriate rather than operationally effective.