The Ethics/Morality of Peacekeeping Forces

Currently, the United Nations has peacekeeping forces in nearly 20 countries, all of which are experiencing internal strife and, in some cases, the genocide of a minority group. Some believe that actors that have the ability to institute peacekeeping have not only the right to intervene and provide assistance, but rather, the responsibility to do so. This responsibility is rooted in morality and the idea that ending human rights violations is the “right” step to take. The purpose of the peacekeeping missions is to rebuild the infrastructure of a war-torn region and then depart when their presence is no longer deemed necessary. Ultimately, a state must become self-determined and self-ruled, which ultimately is beneficial for that state and the other states providing aid.

Since the end of World War II, state sovereignty has been greatly undermined by a desire to prevent the violation of human rights. Using morality to justify their actions, some states and international organizations have taken the initiative and entered a nation in chaos with peacekeeping forces, in hopes of stopping whatever human rights abuses may be taking place internally. Unfortunately, this has established a complicated paradox, because in order for human rights abuses to end, intervention from an outside presence is usually required. Some international theorists, including realists and communitarians, are staunchly opposed to non-intervention, but, in the case of communitarians, are also in favor of ending human rights abuses. Some balance between the two norms must be established, because choosing one norm over the other could set a dangerous precedent either way.