How Peace Operations Can Help Prevent Genocide and Mass Atrocities

On May 13–14, high-level officials are convening in Berlin to discuss the future of United Nations (UN) peace operations. Perhaps more than ever in its seven-plus decade history, the future of UN peacekeeping is uncertain. Several current trends raise important questions about how and whether UN peace operations are up to the task of helping prevent large-scale, systematic attacks on civilians including genocide. These trends include gridlock among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, also known as the P5); budgetary constraints and the possibility of changes to major donors’ longstanding support for peace operations; and shifts in the nature of violent conflict and mass atrocities.

As UN officials, other practitioners, and scholars work to make sense of the future of peace operations, they should draw on a combination of research evidence and perspectives from experienced practitioners to guide their efforts to increase the effectiveness of this atrocity prevention tool. In our new report, “Using Peace Operations to Help Prevent Mass Atrocities: Results from Interviews with Experienced Practitioners,” we draw some provisional conclusions about how these two types of evidence might contribute to the practice of peace operations.

Lessons learned about peace operations

There is an expansive and growing research literature about peace operations. At last count, our systematic review about atrocity prevention tools identified 156 separate studies about peace operations published from 1990–2023. In general, these studies suggest that peace operations are effective, on average, in reducing violence, including armed conflict and violence against civilians. 

The Simon-Skjodt Center’s broader “Lessons Learned in Preventing and Responding to Mass Atrocities” project seeks to understand better how policy makers, across all levels of government, can take effective action to prevent mass atrocity crimes and protect civilian populations in situations where they face serious threats of group-targeted, systematic violence. In an earlier report, we interviewed practitioners with experience working on targeted sanctions in the US government. For our new report, we used the same approach to take stock of perspectives from peace operations practitioners with experience in the US government and multiple parts of the United Nations.

Key findings from practitioner interviews

We conducted structured interviews with 13 people, including officials with military or policy experience at the US Department of State, US Department of Defense, and several UN agencies, including the Office of the UN Secretary-General and Department of Peace Operations. Our interviewees had an average of 11 years of experience working on peace operations in the US government or at the United Nations and more than five years working on peace operations outside of these institutions. We asked the interviewees for their reflections on the overall effectiveness of peace operations and the contextual and design factors that influence the tool’s effectiveness. 

In keeping with findings from the research literature, all practitioners agreed that peace operations are at least sometimes effective in reducing mass atrocities. The bulk of the interviews asked practitioners about which factors are associated with greater effectiveness of peace operations. Their responses also mostly tracked findings from empirical research. Eleven out of 13 practitioners cited domestic cooperation with the peace operation as being associated with greater effectiveness; 13 research studies also support this finding. They also cited four characteristics of the design and implementation of peace operations that are also supported by strong empirical evidence: (1) international support or cooperation, (2) commitment to the peace operation’s implementation, (3) peace operations that are well-informed about the political and social context, and (4) a large number of peacekeeping troops.

One area in which we found both mixed research evidence and a lack of practitioner consensus is the impact of peacekeeping mandates. Four studies in our research review found that “protection of civilians” mandates, which authorize peacekeeping missions to use all necessary means to protect civilians, are associated with greater effectiveness. By contrast, three studies suggest that these mandates are associated with either lesser effectiveness or “no or mixed” effects. Eight of 13 practitioners cited these mandates as a success factor; by implication, five of 13 did not think that these mandates have a consistently positive effect on peacekeeping outcomes.

In the course of their comments, the interviewees cited two factors that will surely continue to pose challenges for peace operations. First, new trends in international conflict and gridlock between the P5 countries pose major challenges to the effectiveness of peace operations. One participant noted that the absence of a united front by large external powers makes it difficult to authorize new missions, despite an uptick in mass atrocities and conflict around the world. Second, the voluntary, multinational nature of troop contributions to peacekeeping missions means that the effective command and control and operational capabilities required to protect civilians are often weaker than would be ideal. However, the practitioners also noted that there are untapped opportunities for peace operations to use newer technologies for strategic goals, such as the use of social media for early warning about mass atrocities and strategic communication about their efforts to protect civilians.

A report that the United Nations commissioned in preparation for this year’s Peacekeeping Ministerial describes atrocity prevention as one of 30 potential models for future operations. In their report, the authors note that peace operations can help protect civilians by undertaking “proactive and credible deterrent actions to eliminate or mitigate immediate physical threats of violence, the physical protection of key sites…facilitation of safe passage for populations under threat, and support to immediate de-escalation measures at various levels.” As global leaders consider the future of peacekeeping, they can find a roadmap for making this model most effective in research evidence and reflections from experienced practitioners.

Daniel Solomon is a research associate with the Simon-Skjodt Center.