ABSTRACT
Until recently the literature on peacekeeping predominantly focused on the failures and successes and strengths and weaknesses of peace missions without reflecting on the reciprocal relations between peace missions and global politics and order. However, within the last five years peacekeeping scholars have begun to discuss how peace missions influence and are influenced by global order. Some of the most interesting contributions to this debate have come from Alex Bellamy et al., David Chandler, Michael Pugh and Oliver Richmond (Bellamy et al. 2004, Chandler 2004, Pugh 2004, Richmond 2004). This chapter briefly presents some of the arguments these scholars have put forward and argues that the debate should not only focus on what world order peace missions support but also on what world order it is desirable that they and how they can do this. The chapter contends that a more cosmopolitan world order is a preferable alternative to the current global order. One of the main pillars of a cosmopolitan global order is the enforcement of cosmopolitan humane law, including securing accountability for violations of humane law in order to prevent further atrocities and thereby also prevent internal violent conflict and wars (Kaldor 2001). Hence, a cosmopolitan world order would involve the transformation of international humane law into cosmopolitan humane law, upholding human rights and humanitarian law, with prosecution of violations seen as a cosmopolitan rather than an international matter. Finally, the chapter identifies some potential roles that peace missions can play in the transformation of the current world order into a cosmopolitan one.
