英文摘要 |
By reviewing the studies about peacekeeping operations, this essay focuses on the contributions and contradictions of those studies and the neoliberalism arguments about international organization studies. Firstly, the principal-agent problems (PA problems) are not only the most common phenomena in the practice of the peacekeeping operations but also are the wide-adapted framework in those studies, particularly on those PA problems that originated from the vague division of labor and from the severe conflict of interests. Secondly, PA problems stemmed from information asymmetry are less studied, even though these problems cause more negative effect on peace duration in the post-conflict society, as well as on the efficacy of peacekeeping operations. Finally, the comparison between those studies and the reality erodes some arguments from international regime theory. Given the repeat-play interaction, while the neo-liberalists argue the assessment of state's reputation and the existence of issue linkage would influence states to change their values, the non-democratic countries do not adjust their views on operations and their responsibility to protect. Further, the lack of reward-punishment mechanism on the disciplines of peacekeepers not only erodes the presumption of regime theory but also implies that the United Nations does not respect humanitarian intervention and human rights enough. Finally, the expectation on democratic peace and the support of democratization held by the United Nations triggers the information-asymmetry PA problem between the host countries and the United Nations, which as a result bring more difficulties and challenges for peacekeeping missions. |