in more intense fighting and more deaths, but
such wars end more quickly and therefore in
some circumstances fewer overall deaths might
occur.
• Neither peacekeeping nor non-intervention has
much impact on the democratization of the target state in either the short or long term.
• The presumption is that more human rights
abuses (e.g., rape, genocidal acts) and other
negative consequences (corruption, economic
distortions) will occur in unconstrained war.
Peacekeeping is not immune from such effects,
albeit at much lower levels, and sometimes is
directly responsible for such occurrences.
The bottom line is that the choice of sending a peace
operation to a conflict, as opposed to taking a “handsoff” approach is not clear-cut on utilitarian grounds.
Policy makers might be faced with what Greig and
Diehl (2005) have referred to as the “peacekeepingpeacemaking” dilemma. Stopping the fighting and
sending in a peace force could save combatant and
civilian lives as well as prevent the most heinous human rights violations. It also might make the renewal
of violence less likely, especially in the short run. Yet
all this comes at the expense of promoting a full settlement to the conflict, and in the long run the peacekeeping advantages might dissipate or be reversed
under some scenarios.
Endnotes
1. Paul F. Diehl and Alexandru Balas, Peace Operations, 2nd editon, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014).
23