Conflict management norms in multilateral fora such as the UN Security Council are in flux. This uncertainty makes it more difficult for UN peace operations to interpret mandates and political directives, which already tend to be static, ambiguous, and insufficiently contextualised to complex and fast-changing environments. Against this background, how do UN Security Council mandates make their way into action? We address this question in the context of Special Political Missions (SPMs) which are increasingly being operationalised to manage conflict globally because large military peace operations are no longer considered an option due to their cost, inability to resolve the conflict, and a deficit of viable exit strategies.

This research project asks: How are top-down directives translated and implemented at mission level in UN peacekeeping? Specifically: How do SPM staff interpret and action UN mandates at mission level? How can we explain variation in mission level interpretation of top-down directives? How do SPM staff navigate international and regional competition in their mission areas? To answer these questions, we use a comparative case study across different types of SPMs on three continents. This research contributes to scholarship on how global governance is dealing with the crisis of multilateralism and debates on organisational culture, principal-agent relationships, and micro-level responses to macro-level ambiguity.

• conflict management
• international organisations
• peace and security
• peacekeeping

Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Share by WhatsApp Share by Mastodon