Conclusion
When the United Nations was slow to act in Somalia and the Congo, critics were appalled that its member states could allow the civil conflicts to continue
without taking concerted action. Although individual cases might vary, we explored whether sending
a peacekeeping force versus letting the fighting continue is a superior strategy in general. We use the normative standard provided by utilitarianism, namely
judging the relative benefits of each strategy weighed
against the harms, focusing on four main goals of the
international community in addressing ongoing wars.
The results of our analysis reveal something of a mixed
bag in terms of the merits of each approach:
• During an ongoing conflict, obtaining a ceasefire and deploying a peace operation makes
diplomatic efforts less likely to occur and less
successful when they do occur.
• Once an end to the fighting is reached, the
relative advantage of each approach varies by
time and the identity of the victor in an unconstrained war. Peacekeeping is clearly superior
to government victories in civil wars with respect to preventing or delaying the renewal of
violent conflict. Rebel victories poses the greatest risk to the return of war in the short-run, but
are actually more stable, superior to peacekeeping and government victories, in the long run.
• Peacekeeping can reduce both battlefield and
civilian deaths, but only if troop size is large
enough; the average operation size, however,
is sub-optimal on average and therefore the
conflict management is less than could be
achieved. Letting the fighting continue results
22