This work deals with the bureaucratic organization of UN peacekeeping missions. It is tested whether bureaucratic misunderstanding can lead to failure and whether this is the case in Srebrenica. It is assumed that discrepancies between the perception of the bureaucrats and the current situation on the ground can be risky with regard to the successful completion of the mission. A further question is also whether bureaucratic hurdles can hinder the successful completion of a mission and whether the Srebrenica massacre could have been prevented with a more flexible bureaucratic interpretation of the rules.
The structure of this work will be as follows: After this introduction, constructivism is explained in principles, followed by a more detailed view of the bureaucratic approach of Barnett and Finnemore. After completion of the theoretical part, the emphasis will be on Bosnia. Chapter three is divided into three parts. The first part is a little overview about the beginning of the Bosnia War, second part gives an overview about the UNPROFOR UN mission in Bosnia and the last section of chapter three deals with the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995. Chapter four will review the case of Srebrenica, the Bosnia mission in general and the UN’s failure with the abovementioned constructivist approach.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Constructivism and Pathologies in International Relations
3. The Bosnia War
3.1 Overview
3.2 UN-mission UNPROFOR
3.3 Massacre of Srebrenica
4. Analysis
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to explain the failure of the United Nations in the Srebrenica mission by applying the constructivist approach developed by Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore. It specifically tests the hypothesis that inefficient bureaucratic regulations within the UN peacekeeping framework led to the inadequate protection of established security zones, ultimately facilitating the Srebrenica massacre.
- Constructivist theory in International Relations
- Pathologies of International Organizations (IOs)
- Bureaucratic culture and organizational dysfunction
- The UNPROFOR peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Analysis of the failure to defend the Srebrenica safe area
Excerpt from the Book
4. Analysis
At the beginning, this paper investigates the mechanism of irrationality of rationalization in the case of Srebrenica. As already mentioned in chapter two, this mechanism says, that bureaucracies tailor their missions to fit in the existing rulebook. This means, that rules can determining the ends and the way, goals are defined (Barnett and Finnemore, 1999: 720). The rule-fitting model of the UNPROFOR mandate was probably one of the main factors of the failure of Srebrenica.
One of the main rules in UN peacekeeping is the rule of impartiality (“Principles of peacekeeping”, n.d.). To fit the principle of the impartiality, UN blue helmets are not allowed to judge whether the mission is right or wrong. Peacekeeping is to split parties in conflict and to build a form of peaceful regularisations to simplify negotiations (Boulden, 2001: 13-14), also blue helmets are only allowed to make the use of force only in the meaning of self-defense or to prepossess the mandate (Boulden, 2001: i.b.). This form of strictly following the rules waged even before the fall of Srebrenica to some problematic situations for the blue helmets.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on the UN's peacekeeping failure in Bosnia and introducing the research question regarding Srebrenica.
2. Constructivism and Pathologies in International Relations: Establishes the theoretical framework by exploring constructivist principles and the five mechanisms of organizational pathology as defined by Barnett and Finnemore.
3. The Bosnia War: Provides a historical overview of the conflict, the mandate of the UNPROFOR mission, and the specific events leading up to the Srebrenica massacre.
4. Analysis: Applies the theoretical mechanisms of bureaucratic pathology to the actual events in Srebrenica to evaluate the validity of the central hypothesis.
5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirms the influence of bureaucratic culture on the mission's failure, and reflects on the broader implications for future peacekeeping operations.
Keywords
Constructivism, Pathologies of International Organizations, UNPROFOR, Srebrenica Massacre, Bureaucratic Culture, Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Bosnia War, Irrationality of Rationalization, Bureaucratic Universalism, Normalization of Deviance, Insulation, Cultural Contestation, UN Security Council, Impartiality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the bureaucratic nature of the United Nations and how its organizational culture contributed to the failure of the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, specifically regarding the Srebrenica massacre.
What are the core thematic areas discussed?
The study covers constructivist theory, the sociology of international organizations, the history of the Bosnian war, and the specific operational failures of UNPROFOR.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks how the failure of the UN in Srebrenica can be explained through the lens of the constructivist approach regarding the pathologies of international organizations.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a qualitative analysis approach, utilizing technical literature and direct United Nations reports to test the hypothesis against the case study of Srebrenica.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body integrates theoretical concepts—such as the "irrationality of rationalization"—with empirical historical data concerning the events leading to the fall of the Srebrenica safe area.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include constructivism, bureaucratic pathology, UNPROFOR, Srebrenica, peacekeeping, and organizational dysfunction.
How does "bureaucratic universalism" apply to the Bosnian context?
The author argues that UN representatives, such as Yasushi Akashi, applied tactical rules learned in successful missions (like in Cambodia) to the vastly different situation in Bosnia, leading to critical misjudgments.
What role did the "dual key agreement" play in the failure?
The dual key agreement required both NATO and the UN civilian leadership to authorize air support; the conflicting interests and veto powers of these actors blocked effective action when it was most needed.
Does the author conclude that the hypothesis was confirmed?
Yes, the author concludes that the hypothesis is generally confirmed, as four of the five analyzed mechanisms of pathological behavior were clearly identifiable in the Srebrenica case.
What is the historical significance of the Srebrenica case for the UN?
The case remains a tragic milestone that forced a global debate on the effectiveness of traditional peacekeeping, highlighting the fatal consequences of bureaucratic rigidity in high-stakes environments.
- Citar trabajo
- Julian Apel (Autor), 2019, UN-peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the failure of Srebrenica. Bureaucratic Culture in International Organizations, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/950822
