FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4255796730> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4255796730 endingPage "201" @default.
• W4255796730 startingPage "192" @default.
• W4255796730 abstract "The question implied in the title of this chapter may seem provocative at a time when peacekeeping operations have been recently, and are currently, deployed around the world on a scale unimaginable before 1990. The question is timely, nonetheless, because the multiplicity of such operations has spawned ever more pressing questions about their conduct, effectiveness, management and impact. Since 1989, opportunities for peacekeeping have increased, partly because the end of the Cold War has made it easier to obtain consent within the United Nations, and partly because public opinion is better informed (the ‘CNN effect’) about geographically remote conflicts, and less tolerant therefore of inactivity on the part of their own governments. Nevertheless, the nature of conflicts has changed, and so has the required response. The essentially intra-state character of many conflicts raises important questions about sovereignty: in what circumstances is it legitimate for the ‘international community’ (however defined) to intervene in a situation that is either exclusively, or largely, confined within the borders of a single state? If the situation is perceived as a major humanitarian issue (e.g. ethnic genocide) there may be good grounds for saying that the moral imperative overrides the strictly legal concern for non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. However, even if such a moral imperative is recognized, there may be reluctance to be involved or disagreement as to how the crisis should best be tackled: opposing factions within one Third World country may be supported, respectively, by separate or overlapping groups of states in the world community. The shift towards these more complex operations, emphasizing the enforcement of peace instead of its maintenance, has drawn the whole question of ‘peacekeeping’ into more controversial territory. While it is well known that peacekeeping operations have become much more numerous since 1989, it is also true that the risk of failure, and the results of failure, have increased in equal measure. On the one hand, there has been a strong incentive, if not necessity, to veer towards peace enforcement, while, on the other hand, the dangers of straying from the path of classic peacekeeping (the ‘thin blue line’ ethos) have been only too apparent. At the heart of this conundrum lies the distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement." @default.
• W4255796730 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4255796730 creator A5046635246 @default.
• W4255796730 date "1998-01-01" @default.
• W4255796730 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4255796730 title "A Future for Peacekeeping?" @default.
• W4255796730 cites W4250212320 @default.
• W4255796730 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26027-0_9" @default.
• W4255796730 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W4255796730 type Work @default.
• W4255796730 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W4255796730 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W4255796730 hasAuthorship W4255796730A5046635246 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C183761623 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C186229450 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C204342414 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C2779872411 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C11413529 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C138921699 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C144024400 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C17744445 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C183761623 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C186229450 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C190253527 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C199539241 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C204342414 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C2779872411 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C41008148 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C48103436 @default.
• W4255796730 hasConceptScore W4255796730C94625758 @default.
• W4255796730 hasLocation W42557967301 @default.
• W4255796730 hasOpenAccess W4255796730 @default.
• W4255796730 hasPrimaryLocation W42557967301 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W1513964734 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W1985002668 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W2047828675 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W2259482025 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W2566921913 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W2772970285 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W4255796730 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W579297110 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W613308538 @default.
• W4255796730 hasRelatedWork W2189239283 @default.
• W4255796730 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4255796730 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4255796730 workType "book-chapter" @default.