Humanitarian Force

The report examines the complexities of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War era, where internal conflicts predominate over interstate wars. It argues that these conflicts are often driven by economic and political injustice and manipulated by 'conflict entrepreneurs' who mobilize ethnic identity for power. The text analyzes the ethical dilemmas of intervention through the Just War tradition, the systemic coordination failures between the UN and NGOs, and the specific dynamics of Russian interventions in the former Soviet south and emergent peace-keeping efforts in Africa.

• Modern internal conflicts are frequently the result of 'conflict entrepreneurs'—political actors who deliberately manipulate identity and create perceived existential threats to gain personal or collective power.
• The 'Just War' tradition provides a methodology for discussing the ethics of intervention through criteria such as right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, open declaration, proportionality, and reasonable hope.
• Humanitarian intervention often faces a dilemma where forceful action to stop violence may inadvertently sanction 'ethnic cleansing' or freeze an unjust status quo, as seen in the Dayton agreement for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
• There is a systemic lack of coordination between the UN and NGOs due to differing motivations, bureaucratic structures, and a history of mutual suspicion.
• Russian interventions in the Caucasus and Central Asia between 1992 and 1994 were characterized by a 'two-dimensional' approach of political pressure and military deterrence, which ended violence but failed to produce lasting political resolutions.
• The Chechen War severely damaged the Russian Army's morale and capabilities, leading to a 'defeat syndrome' and reducing Russia's ability to project power in its 'near abroad'.
• In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the development of Caspian Sea oil reserves has become a primary driver of Western interest and a potential tool for either conflict resolution or destabilization.
• African states are increasingly attempting to build indigenous peace-keeping capacities due to a perceived 'vacuum' left by the international community's reluctance to intervene militarily in Africa.
• The US-led African Crisis Response Force (ACRF) initiative was criticized for a lack of consultation with African leaders and the OAU, and for appearing as a 'gimmick' or a means of US disengagement.
• African peace-keeping efforts are hindered by significant shortfalls in troop numbers, transportation, logistics, and a lack of multinational coordination structures.

APA

McDermott, A., Baev, P., Eide, E. B., Ginifer, J., & Smith, D. (1997). Humanitarian Force. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4a7c2e4e-05bc-4b90-a93b-31376fe49469/Humanitarian Force.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

McDermott, Anthony, Pavel Baev, Espen Barth Eide, Jeremy Ginifer, and Dan Smith. Humanitarian Force. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 1997. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4a7c2e4e-05bc-4b90-a93b-31376fe49469/Humanitarian Force.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=McDermott |first1=Anthony |last2=Baev |first2=Pavel |last3=Eide |first3=Espen Barth |last4=Ginifer |first4=Jeremy |last5=Smith |first5=Dan |title=Humanitarian Force |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=1997 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4a7c2e4e-05bc-4b90-a93b-31376fe49469/Humanitarian Force.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{mcdermott1997humanitarian, author = {McDermott, Anthony and Baev, Pavel and Eide, Espen Barth and Ginifer, Jeremy and Smith, Dan}, title = {{Humanitarian Force}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {1997}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/4a7c2e4e-05bc-4b90-a93b-31376fe49469/Humanitarian Force.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }