Abstract The scholarly analysis of peace operations’ mandates has grown considerably throughout the late 2010s and early 2020s. Influenced by Cold War-era dynamics, previous studies largely treated peace operations as monolithic entities. In contrast, scholarship—influenced by the post-Cold War expansion of peacekeeping into a broader range of responsibilities—has begun to conduct nuanced examinations of operations’ mandates, as well as the tasks and activities that appear therein. This work has relied on a diversity of terminology, including operations, missions, and mandates, to operationalize conceptually similar processes and developments. At the same time, myriad efforts have emerged to measure variation in operations’ mandates, with both divergences and convergences in methodology, operationalization, and temporal and spatial scope across these data. Leveraging such empirical advancements, this research has also begun to examine the impact that variation in mandates has on a variety of key outcomes, including not only mandate implementation but also reductions in conflict-related violence, agreement implementation, and democratization. With this emerging scholarship coming, at times, to different broad conclusions, a key takeaway is that a consideration of operations’ mandated tasks and activities is crucial for determining their overall effectiveness. To move this research agenda forward, future research can refine the study of peace operations by, for example, explaining variation in the mandates of operations and documenting their impact on the success or failure of those operations.

With no new UN peacekeeping operations authorized since 2017, are they a relic of the past? This article argues that that although UN peacekeeping faces significant headwinds, there are alternatives that fill, at least in part, the gaps. Specifically, there are six alternatives that appear possible, and often likely, in the near future: (1) a return to narrowly mandated UN operations that monitor cease-fires after limited peace agreements, (2) operations carried out by regional organizations, (3) limited actions involving UN civilian police, (4) UN peace initiatives emphasizing diplomacy and technical assistance, (5) “minilateral coalitions of the willing”, and (6) privatization, involving private security services.

Abstract The so-called age of apology has led to a burgeoning literature on political apologies in international relations, centering on state officials’ recognition of historical transgressions, acceptance of responsibility, and expressions of remorse. Along with the empirical increase in political apologies has been a growth and expansion of scholarly studies devoted to understanding them as purposive acts in diplomacy. The examination of this literature is divided into three primary segments: (a) the definition and different types of apologies; (b) the motivations behind the use of apologies; and (c) the outcomes of apologies, specifically whether they promote better relations between states, whether there is a domestic backlash, and what effects they have on international reputation. Although apologies are generally aimed at reconciliation, they often yield mixed results. On the domestic front, international apologies can provoke domestic backlash, undermining leaders seeking reconciliation and tarnishing their perceived sincerity. Paradoxically, if a state is willing to risk domestic dissent in order to offer an apology, it may be perceived as a costly commitment to reconciliation internationally. At the global level, apologies can serve as tools for repairing tarnished reputations by signaling a departure from past missteps. Nevertheless, they might also be interpreted as signs of weakness, thereby reducing the apologizing state’s symbolic power.

This chapter initially provides an overview of international law as a field of study, offering a brief history of its development. The chapter also summarizes Bloom's Taxonomy of learning objectives as this framework is used extensively in subsequent chapters. The core of the chapter is devoted to the place of international law in the curriculums of different contexts: undergraduate - US model; undergraduate - UK and Europe model; graduate programs - MA and PhD; law school programs; and specialty programs - LLM. For each of these contexts, we discuss the audiences, course levels, objectives, and student career paths in which the international law course is taught. The chapter concludes with an overview of the remaining chapters.

Although this book is focused on the initial and general course on public international law, other courses on international law cover more specific subjects, such as human rights, environmental law, trade, and international criminal law. This final chapter briefly considers each of those four, more specialized courses. We review some of the history of these as subjects of international law as well as how they might be covered in the classroom. The purposes of this chapter is to provide some guidance to instructors who might also teach such specialized courses as well as for those who might want to incorporate greater coverage of any of those topics in their general course on public international law.

In this chapter, we consider the content that might be covered in an international law course. We begin with an analysis of patterns of topical inclusion found in samples of international law syllabi and textbooks. The chapter also outlines the essential topics (and subtopics) for a course in international law. The primary topics are: history and background; sources, actors and subjects, jurisdiction, courts and institutions, domestic and international law, state responsibility, laws of war, international human rights, international human rights, global commons, international economic and trade law; and international criminal law In our presentation and recommendations, we rely on the distinction between the operating (e.g., how law is made, actors, jurisdiction) and normative (e.g., use of force, environment) systems first made in our 2010 book The Dynamics of International Law.

This chapter addresses pedagogical approaches to teaching international law. Case studies, often paired with the Socratic Method, are staples of legal pedagogy. These come primarily in two forms: decisions of national/international courts and real/hypothetical events or problems that raise legal issues, respectively. This chapter examines these approaches as well as alternatives including conventional lectures, active learning exercises, and other approaches. The purposes, advantages, and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed as is the importance of context in choosing among them.

J. David Singer, a globally recognized scholar of international politics, died Monday, December 28, 2009, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was involved in an auto accident on September 22 and had been hospitalized since. At the time of his death, Singer was Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan, where he'd been on the faculty from 1958 until retiring in 2002. He was 84 years old.

This article identifies and extends several key issues and concerns derived from those other contributions in the special issue. These are organized around three questions: (1) whose peace?, (2) whose norms?, (3) what is the relationship between norms and peace? Within each of these three sections, the article notes how the other articles raise key issues about the intersection of norms and peace. In addition, the key issues or research concerns within each section are reviewed with an eye to future research and approaches. The article also draws upon the broader studies on norms and peace in providing these pathways.

Authors of good scholarship must address alternative explanations to the one that they have proposed-to resolve debates, to entertain competing hypotheses, and ultimately, to cumulate knowledge. Authors approach this task proactively, as well as reactively. Indeed, during the peer-review process, reviewers and journal editors frequently identify alternative explanations that the author did not address and then set a hurdle; they demand that the author adequately address the identified alternatives for the publication process to proceed. This raises a question that, to our knowledge, no discipline has thoroughly discussed. What is the proper role of alternative explanations in the peer-review process? We argue that the peer-review process often (unnecessarily) sets too high an "alternative explanations hurdle." We first lay out the philosophical, scope, and practical considerations that lead us to this conclusion. Then, to begin a discussion about adjusting the hurdle's height going forward, we propose a set of separate guidelines-the Three AREs-for authors, reviewers, and editors. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the consequences of "alternative explanation gatekeeping." Our goal is ultimately not to eliminate the author's responsibility to address alternative explanations, but rather to encourage the peer-review process to make more reasonable demands of submitting authors. Los autores de literatura acad & eacute;mica de calidad deben abordar explicaciones alternativas a las que han propuesto en sus trabajos con el fin de resolver debates, de contemplar hip & oacute;tesis contrapuestas y, en & uacute;ltima instancia, de acumular conocimiento. Los autores abordan esta tarea tanto de forma proactiva como de forma reactiva. De hecho, durante el proceso de revisi & oacute;n por pares, los revisores y los editores de revistas suelen identificar explicaciones alternativas que el autor no abord & oacute; y, en consecuencia, crean un obst & aacute;culo para el autor ya que suelen exigir que el autor aborde adecuadamente las alternativas identificadas para que el proceso de publicaci & oacute;n contin & uacute;e. Esto plantea una pregunta que, hasta donde sabemos, no ha sido debatida a fondo en ninguna disciplina. & iquest;Cu & aacute;l es el papel adecuado que deber & iacute;an jugar estas explicaciones alternativas en el proceso de revisi & oacute;n por pares? Argumentamos que el proceso de revisi & oacute;n por pares a menudo establece, de manera innecesaria, un << obst & aacute;culo en materia de explicaciones alternativas >> que resulta demasiado elevado. En primer lugar, exponemos las consideraciones filos & oacute;ficas, de alcance y pr & aacute;cticas que nos llevan a esta conclusi & oacute;n. A continuaci & oacute;n, comenzamos una discusi & oacute;n sobre c & oacute;mo ajustar la altura de estos obst & aacute;culos en el futuro. Para ello, proponemos un conjunto de pautas separadas, las Tres ARE, para autores, revisores y editores (ARE). Por & uacute;ltimo, concluimos con un debate de las consecuencias que tiene la << b & uacute;squeda de la explicaci & oacute;n alternativa >>. En & uacute;ltima instancia, nuestro objetivo no consiste en eliminar la responsabilidad del autor con respecto a abordar explicaciones alternativas, sino m & aacute;s bien en fomentar que el proceso de revisi & oacute;n por pares haga demandas m & aacute;s razonables a los autores que presentan sus trabajos. Les auteurs de bons travaux de recherche doivent traiter les explications alternatives & agrave; celle qu'ils ont propos & eacute;e, pour r & eacute;soudre des d & eacute;bats, envisager des hypoth & egrave;ses concurrentes et, finalement, accumuler des connaissances. Les auteurs abordent cette t & acirc;che de mani & egrave;re proactive, mais aussi r & eacute;active. En effet, lors du processus de v & eacute;rification par des pairs, il est fr & eacute;quent que les relecteurs et chefs de r & eacute;daction de revues identifient des explications alternatives que l'auteur n'a pas trait & eacute;es. Ils cr & eacute;ent alors un obstacle pour lui : ils lui demandent de traiter correctement les alternatives identifi & eacute;es afin que le processus de publication se poursuive. Appara & icirc;t alors une question qu'& agrave; notre connaissance, aucune discipline n'a pleinement analys & eacute;e. Quel r & ocirc;le devraient avoir les explications alternatives dans le processus de v & eacute;rification par des pairs ? Nous affirmons que celui-ci cr & eacute;e souvent, sans que cela ne s'impose, un << obstacle d'explications alternatives >> trop imposant. Nous exposons d'abord les consid & eacute;rations philosophiques, pratiques et de port & eacute;e qui nous conduisent & agrave; cette conclusion. Ensuite, pour lancer une discussion sur l'ajustement de la hauteur de l'obstacle & agrave; l'avenir, nous proposons un ensemble de lignes directrices & agrave; appliquer distinctement aux auteurs, relecteurs et chefs de r & eacute;daction. Enfin, nous concluons notre propos sur une discussion des cons & eacute;quences de la << barri & egrave;re de l'explication alternative >>. Notre but ultime n'est pas de supprimer la responsabilit & eacute; de l'auteur lorsqu'il s'agit de traiter les explications alternatives, mais plut & ocirc;t d'encourager la formulation de demandes plus raisonnables & agrave; l'intention des auteurs qui proposent des articles lors du processus de v & eacute;rification par des pairs.

Abstract Chapter 2 begins by providing a taxonomy of eleven UN peacekeeping missions, with a description and example for each. It then examines the frequency of seventy UN peace operations during the period 1948–2016 and identifies the missions that took place in each of the operations. The chapter presents a series of empirical patterns about those missions and how they vary across time and other contexts, as well as in relation to one another. There is also a specification of twelve dimensions along which peace operations can be compared for similarity. The study uses these dimensions to develop three quantitative indicators of compatibility, each with a different underlying theoretical logic. Scores are given for all seventy UN operations across those three indicators, permitting compatibility assessments between individual or groups of missions. Finally, the chapter presents eight different theoretical expectations about how the sequencing and interactions of different missions affect their outcomes.

Abstract Chapter 5 focuses on two operations—United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor or UNTAET (East Timor) and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or MONUC (Congo). These are complex operations that include more and different combinations of missions, including a number of peacebuilding missions. For each operation, we provide a brief overview of the conflict background and the key elements in the timeline for the operations. The core of the analysis is an assessment of the outcomes for each of the missions in the operation, with an eye to how they are connected in ways described by our expectations (or not).

Abstract Chapter 6 focuses on a single operation—the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone or UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone)—which had the full number and range of missions elucidated in the theoretical expectations and covered in the compatibility indicators (nine in number). For this operation, the authors provide a brief overview of the conflict background and the key elements in the timeline for the operation. The core of the analysis is an assessment of the outcomes for each of the missions in the operation, with an eye to how they are connected in ways described by the study’s expectations (or not).

Abstract Chapter 4 focuses on two operations—the United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR (Bosnia) and the United Nations Operation in the Congo or ONUC (Congo)—that are the oldest ones in the study’s set and involve the fewest number of missions. Examining these two cases in tandem allows the authors to consider whether problems with multiple missions are primarily in the domain of the more recent peacebuilding operations or whether such problems are seemingly inherent to UN peace operations. For each operation, the chapter provides a brief overview of the conflict background and the key elements in the timeline for the operations. The core of the analysis is an assessment of the outcomes for each of the missions in the operation, with an eye toward how they are connected in ways laid out by our expectations (or not).

Abstract Most analyses of peacekeeping focus on attempts to limit violent conflict. Yet contemporary peace operations are asked to do much more, including unconventional roles of monitoring elections, facilitating transitions to the rule of law, distributing humanitarian aid, and resolving conflicts in civil societies undergoing transformation. This pathbreaking work takes the lid off peace operations to explore missions (e.g., Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration) that go beyond traditional peacekeeping and the ways mission outcomes influence one another. This work begins by documenting patterns of peacekeeping missions in seventy UN operations, noting the dramatic increase in their number and diversity since the end of the Cold War and the shift to conflicts with a substantial internal conflict component. The core of the book examines eight expectations about how different missions interact with one another. The expectations are guided by theoretical logics associated with sequencing, compatibility, and multitasking. These are examined in five detailed case studies of UN operations: United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR (Bosnia); United Nations Operation in the Congo or ONUC (Congo); United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor or UNTAET (East Timor); United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or MONUC (Congo); and United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone or UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone). The final chapter reviews the findings in terms of their implications for the expectations. It also provides a policy-relevant framework for organizing the various parts and stages of a peace operation, offering a future research agenda on multiple mission peacekeeping.

Abstract Chapter 3 describes the research plan for this study. Five cases of peace operations are selected as case studies: United Nations Protection Force or UNPROFOR (Bosnia); United Nations Operation in the Congo or ONUC (Congo); United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor or UNTAET (East Timor); United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or MONUC (Congo); and the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone or UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone). This is followed by a discussion of the issues involved in making causal inferences and establishing valid baselines for assessment. The chapter then summarizes the nine missions that will be explored in the book’s five case studies and the associated information sources used to make judgments about the outcomes of the missions embedded in those operations.