Cooperation
and Conflict
http://cac.sagepub.com/
Organizational learning in United Nations' peacekeeping exit strategies
Gisela Hirschmann
Cooperation and Conflict 2012 47: 368
DOI: 10.1177/0010836712445342
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cac.sagepub.com/content/47/3/368
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Nordic International Studies Association
Additional services and information for Cooperation and Conflict can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cac.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://cac.sagepub.com/content/47/3/368.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 22, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from cac.sagepub.com at Univ Catholique Louvain Bib on October 13, 2013
445342
12
CAC0010.1177/0010836712445342HirschmannCooperation and Conflict
Article
Organizational learning in
United Nations’ peacekeeping
exit strategies
Cooperation and Conflict
47(3) 368­–385
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836712445342
cac.sagepub.com
Gisela Hirschmann
Abstract
This article illustrates how organizational learning can explain the shift in United Nations’
peacekeeping exit strategies from the election-based approach of the 1990s to peacebuilding.
Conceptualizing learning as an ideal-type, three-step process, of knowledge acquisition,
interpretation and institutionalization, the analysis reveals the impact of new knowledge on
institutional change. It demonstrates how knowledge acquisition became systematized within the
United Nations’ Secretariat especially after 2000, with the active promotion of boundary-spanning
activities. The analysis then shows how a shared understanding of the role of peacebuilding for exit
strategies was developed by the organization’s bureaucracy and intergovernmental bodies in the
interpretation step. Finally, it highlights how the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission
institutionalized the transition to peacebuilding as the new exit strategy and how new learning
capacities were created. By conceiving the interaction between international organizations and
their external environment as a dynamic relationship, the analysis confirms the potential of
organizational learning theories for explaining institutional change in international relations.
Keywords
exit strategies, international organizations, organizational learning, peacebuilding, United
Nations peacekeeping
Introduction
Although designed to solve common global problems, international organizations (IOs)
have nevertheless developed practices which Barnett and Finnemore (1999) identified
as ‘pathological’; the specific organizational characteristics of IOs make them prone to
dysfunctional and hypocritical behaviour that contradicts their original mission. The
case of peacekeeping exit strategies was identified as such a pathology (see Barnett and
Corresponding author:
Gisela Hirschmann, Social Science Research Center, Berlin Research Unit‚ Transnational Conflicts and
International Institutions, Reichpietschufer 50, DE-10785 Berlin, Germany.
Email: hirschmann@wzb.eu
Hirschmann
369
Finnemore, 1999: 720; Hirschmann, 2012; Lipson, 2007). Since the debacle in Somalia
in 1992, United Nations (UN) peace operations after the Cold War have relied on an
election-based exit strategy which defined the conduct of elections as the criterion for
withdrawing an operation (Caplan, 2005: 212; Chesterman, 2004: 205; Durch et al.,
2003: 32). Over time, this strategy became an end in itself, as the organization conducted elections under circumstances that even rendered them counterproductive to the
original goal of establishing peace.
However, pathologies do not have to persist for ever. In the case of exit strategies, the
UN’s approach to ending peace operations changed after leaving behind a mixed record
of success in Namibia and tragic failures in Rwanda and Angola. Transition towards
peacebuilding has become the new strategy for ending peacekeeping missions, which
required an active long-term involvement in peace processes and a more integrated
modus operandi on the part of the organization’s security and development actors.1
Various aspects of peacebuilding, which had not been part of the original mandate of the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), have now been integrated into the
UN’s peacekeeping structure (Barnett et al., 2007: 42). The recent strategy developed
jointly by the DPKO and the Department of Field Support (DFS) identifies ‘peacekeepers as early peacebuilders’.2 This indicates a substantial and long-term institutional
change through which peacekeeping and peacebuilding have become closely connected
(see Cousens, 2001).
This article explores the processes through which this change in exit strategies can be
explained. It uses the mechanism of organizational learning to illustrate its explanatory
potential in the context of institutional the change. Combining the frameworks of Haas
(1990) and Huber (1991), organizational learning is conceptualized as a process of
knowledge acquisition, interpretation and institutionalization. While conceiving the
interaction between international organizations and their external environment as a
dynamic relationship, the analysis provides valuable insights on the role of knowledge
for the adoption of peacebuilding as the new criterion for exit strategies.
By applying organizational learning to the change in peacekeeping exit strategies,
this study makes several important contributions. It explores the influence of knowledge on the dynamics of organizational decision-making even in cases of hard-core
security issues, where learning was expected to have less impact (Haas, 1992: 79).
Furthermore, it illustrates how organizational learning works as a mechanism to
address pathological behaviour. The process reveals how the different parts of an
organization reacted to organized hypocrisy and, by incorporating new knowledge,
changed peacekeeping exit strategies from elections to peacebuilding. By situating the
emergence of peacebuilding in the context of exit strategies, the analysis complements
existing studies on the origins and successes of the concept as such (e.g. Barnett et al.,
2007, Paris, 2004; Stedman, 2002).
The following section establishes the theoretical framework of organizational learning as a three-step process of knowledge acquisition, interpretation and institutionalization. This framework is then applied to the case of peacekeeping exit strategies in
order to explore how organizational learning can help explain institutional change.
The conclusion gives an account of possible alternative explanatory mechanisms, summarizes the main findings and identifies avenues for future research.
370
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
Organizational learning as a causal mechanism for
explaining institutional change
Causal mechanisms have become a helpful analytical tool for case study research
(George and Bennett, 2005). The focus lies in ‘identifying the processes through which
[a social phenomenon] is generated’ (Mayntz, 2004: 238). However, only recently have
efforts been undertaken to develop causal mechanisms that explain how institutional
change in international organizations actually takes place (e.g. Hofmann, 2008; Park,
2005). Different mechanisms established by the research on diffusion, namely coercion,
competition, emulation and learning, represent a helpful starting point (see Börzel and
Risse, 2007; Simmons et al., 2006). Although developed through research which focused
on the effect of norms on the state level, these mechanisms nevertheless constitute an
important theoretical framework for explaining change within an international organization (Heupel and Zürn, 2010). The mechanisms are not meant to be mutually exclusive
but can operate simultaneously or sequentially. In the context of this study, however, the
focus is on organizational learning in order to explore its explanatory potential for analysing institutional change. Contrary to the three other mechanisms, learning emphasizes
the pivotal role of knowledge processing and interpretation. As information control and
knowledge construction have been identified as the central elements contributing to the
power and authority of IOs as independent bureaucracies, learning seems the most promising mechanism to be explored (Barnett and Finnemore, 2004: 29). Moreover, it allows
us to benefit from the conceptual insights of organization theories (e.g. Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, 2006a; March and Olsen, 1975).
Surprisingly few scholars of International Relations have been interested in applying
organizational learning to their field so far (Adebahr, 2009: 91). Based on the theoretical
foundations of Haas (1990), Huber (1991) and Argyris and Schön (1978), some case
studies were conducted to analyse learning in various organizations (e.g. Benner et al.,
2011, Böhling, 2007; Hofmann, 2008; Liese, 2003; Siebenhüner, 2008). Despite these
empirical studies, however, a coherent theory of organizational learning in IR has not yet
been developed. Moreover, the literature still lacks profound theoretical and empirical
analyses of learning processes on the organization level with regard to the UN as well as
to other international organizations. The concept of learning has played an ever greater
role when evaluating UN peace operations; however, most existing studies concentrate
on the mission level or restrict their time frame to the period after a ‘learning infrastructure’ had been established within the UN bureaucracy (see, for example, Benner et al.,
2011; Chesterman, 2004; Diehl, 2008; Durch, 2006; Howard, 2008). It is the purpose of
this article to analyse organizational learning on the strategic and decision-making levels
and thereby to identify learning processes within the UN headquarters structure after the
Cold War. Revealing the different stages of learning will enhance our understanding of
the functioning of IOs and their internal dynamics of institutional change. This supports
the notion of a distinct actorness of IOs by opening up the ‘black box’ and analysing the
different parts of IOs (Barnett and Finnemore, 1999).
Organizational learning in this study is conceptualized as a three-step process of
collective knowledge acquisition, knowledge interpretation and knowledge institutionalization (see also Benner et al., 2011; Huber, 1991).3 In contrast to the more
Hirschmann
371
technical trial-and-error process of adaptation or rational Bayesian updating, learning
is characterized by reflection and organizational inquiries into a problem and existing
practices, which leads to the reformulation of organizational rules and belief systems
(Argyris and Schön, 1978: 22). While this conceptualization avoids normative judgements regarding the outcome of learning, it also emphasizes the collective character of
organizational learning in contrast to individual learning and combines the conceptions
of Haas (1990) and Huber (1991).4 Organizational learning thus implies the transformation of available knowledge about problems and possible solutions into a shared
collective understanding which becomes integrated in organizational memory.
Knowledge in a learning process is more than fact-based or technical information; it
contains pre-structured interpretations of cause–effect relationships and complex
problem solutions (Haas and Haas, 1995).
In the process of knowledge acquisition, the organization is ‘taking apart the problem’
(Haas, 1990: 24). This prompts the organization to engage in ‘boundary-spanning activities’ with its external environment in order to systematically address a specific problem
(Böhling, 2007). Members at the ‘boundaries’ of the organization who are well connected
to the external environment search for new knowledge and problem solutions that were
developed by external experts or at the remote field level (Benner et al., 2011: ch. 3). They
filter the input according to its relevance from the organization’s perspective and channel
the acquired knowledge internally. The boundary-spanning activities of an organization
depend on the organization’s problem awareness and on the available ‘consensual
knowledge’ developed by epistemic communities, that is, national or transnational
‘networks of professionals with a recognized expertise in a specific issue-area’ (Haas,
1992: 4, 14).5 Boundary-spanning activities are essential for a learning process, as they
define the interaction between an organization and its environment and constitute the
organization’s filters for mediating new knowledge (Aldrich, 1979: 110).
In the second step of knowledge interpretation, new knowledge is linked to an issue
by establishing ‘new causal chains’ (Haas, 1990: 28). This implies the revaluation of
previous strategies with regard to the newly acquired knowledge. In the course of interpreting the available knowledge, the organization develops new ‘shared meanings’ and
thus replaces what has previously been regarded as appropriate (Haas, 1990: 40). This
requires an internal debate, in which actors within the organization explicitly use new
knowledge to enhance the plausibility of their arguments while referring to existing
common norms and practices (Benner et al., 2011; Simmons et al., 2008: 28, 30).
Indicators include references to the organization’s mandate, the common good, the
needs of the organization as a whole, the need for consensus as well as arguments based
on legal rules and procedures (Riddervold, 2011). In this reflective process, new knowledge is examined to determine whether, from the organization’s point of view, it is more
appropriate for dealing with the problem than existing understandings.
Knowledge institutionalization ensures that the new knowledge becomes part of the
organization’s rules and practices in order to insulate it from changes through individual
preferences or personnel turnover (March and Olsen, 2005: 4). This occurs through the
development of ‘new organs, subunits, or administrative practices’ designed to incorporate new knowledge (Haas, 1990: 85). The new knowledge is anchored in organizational
memory and thus socializes members and staff in daily policy and decision-making
372
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
procedures (Park, 2005). This requires other members of the organization, especially
those involved in decision-making and planning, to become ‘inducted’ by the new consensual knowledge (Risse and Sikkink, 1999: 11). It can also include an increase in the
organization’s learning capacities, which has been described as deutero-learning (Argyris
and Schön, 1978). This implies new forms of institutional memory and formal evaluation
procedures that accompany the decision-making and implementation processes (Benner
et al., 2011: ch. 3).
It is important to note that in reality these three steps are not so easy to distinguish
because they can overlap or occur simultaneously. For the purpose of analytical clarity,
however, the ideal-type distinction is maintained due to its advantage for conceptualizing
learning as a process. In the next section, the change in peacekeeping exit strategies is
examined by applying the framework of organizational learning.
Organizational learning in peacekeeping exit strategies:
Explaining the change from elections to peacebuilding
Knowledge acquisition
Boundary-spanning activities during the 1990s. Throughout the early 1990s, the UN peacekeeping bureaucracy did not actively seek to challenge the existing understanding of exit
strategies by acquiring new knowledge. Instead, elections were regarded as a useful
means to ensure democratic stabilization and guaranteed a timely withdrawal (Ahmed
et al., 2007: 14). The organization’s boundary-spanning activities on the issue of peace
operation exits were limited to individual mission evaluations without routinely capturing field experiences or expert knowledge on the role of elections. Despite some early
efforts to reach out to the organization’s external environment for mission evaluations, at
that time there were neither signs that the overall principle of elections for ending peacekeeping missions was questioned nor that substantial new knowledge on how to achieve
peace was acquired. Peacekeeping evaluations mainly focused on drawing lessons from
individual operations with regard to technical aspects in order to adapt the range of tasks
of future missions (Bellamy and Williams, 2010: 111–119; Rubinstein, 2008: 8). Shaped
by a long-standing ‘culture of constant improvisation’, the bureaucratic peacekeeping
staff strictly opposed efforts of evaluation or systematized knowledge acquisition (Benner
et al., 2011: 30). No significant number of experienced boundary-spanning actors existed
that would actively acquire new knowledge at the interface between the organization, its
environment and the field. An internal evaluation contributed to the creation of a Lessons
Learned Unit within the DPKO in 1995, which was intended to systematically collect
knowledge from past field operations. Staff resources for knowledge acquisition, however, remained very limited and rendered the search for new knowledge rather eclectic.
This changed with a new generation of staff with profound field experiences who
entered the peacekeeping bureaucracy in the mid-1990s (Benner et al., 2011: 32). Based
on their experiences on the ground, they became aware of problems regarding the exit of
a mission and advocated a new culture of openness and evaluation. Supported by
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, they acted as the first boundary spanners who channelled
new knowledge from the field into the peacekeeping bureaucracy and pushed for
Hirschmann
373
investigations. However, the activities of the boundary spanners, trying to channel new
knowledge into the organization, were met with strong discontent on great parts of the
senior leadership (Benner et al., 2011: 34).
The role of epistemic communities. Even if the organization had actively turned to epistemic communities in order to acquire new knowledge on the role of elections in peace
operations, however, it would have had a hard time finding views which challenged the
existing electoral approach for exit strategies. During the 1990s, research on the democratic peace paradigm and governance regarded elections as the central element for
democratization and post-conflict transition (Chesterman, 2004: ch. 4; Pastor, 1998;
Rich and Newman, 2004). Since the end of the 1990s, however, this ‘electoralism’ has
increasingly been questioned and criticized (Gowan, 2006: 464; Mansfield and Snyder,
1995).7 The extension of the traditional security concept redirected the academic debate
towards new notions of individual security and advocated ‘human security’ in order to
link it to development. This coincided with the evolution of the concept of peacebuilding
in research on democracy (see, e.g., Call and Cousens, 2008; Gowan and Johnstone,
2007), and together the two approaches called for a change in the nature and objectives
of peace operations. New knowledge made available through research revealed a modified understanding of peace and a broader concept of democracy. Studies comparing
field experiences pointed out the long-term requirements for sustainable peace which
would encompass diverse efforts in the area of development and stabilization.8 They
emphasized that elections could no longer be taken as a lasting sign of democracy
and peaceful conflict resolution. In contrast, stability through institution-building and
development became the new category for how sustainable peace and statehood could
be achieved.
How exactly was this new knowledge acquired by the UN and how did it lead to the
change in exit strategies? Surprisingly for a world organization, the epistemic communities with which the UN closely cooperates are limited in their number and geographical
range. Due to the organization’s way of working on a ‘face-to-face basis’, the academic
advisors dealing with the issue of peacekeeping come from a small club of about a
dozen, mainly Western, research institutes.9 This fact has to be highlighted, since the
composition of the external epistemic communities heavily influences what kind of
knowledge is available. In order to initiate a substantial learning process, however, the
organization itself has to actively approach the epistemic communities of its outer
circle.10 The following section shows how increased problem awareness within the
organization, together with new knowledge provided by epistemic communities, has
contributed to a new dynamic in the learning process.
Knowledge acquisition after 2000. The biggest push for active knowledge acquisition
from inside the Secretariat was Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s decision to appoint a
panel of experts under Lakhdar Brahimi on the ‘Threats and Challenges of Peace Operations in 2000’ (Bellamy and Williams, 2010: 121; Durch et al., 2003). The panel’s
report11 was the first attempt to systematically complement past peacekeeping experiences with academic knowledge on peace operations.12 Although it did not produce new
knowledge, but rather summarized available knowledge and evaluations, the report
374
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
openly challenged the existing consensus on exit strategies within the organization.
Through confidential but not secret monthly meetings with members of the Special
Committee on Peacekeeping, the panel composed of experts from inside and outside the
organization channelled its claim that exit strategies should not be restricted to the conduct of elections any more. It advocated instead an increased role for peacebuilding
within peace operations, which had until then been regarded as the primary responsibility of the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the UN Development Programme
(Gourlay, 2009: 15). The panel, moreover, suggested the creation of a Best Practices
Unit to increase the organization’s capacities for systematic knowledge acquisition
(Diehl, 2008: 69).
The organization’s own research capacity, however, only increased after 2003.13 The
declassification of DPKO archives and invitations to researchers to visit missions made
the organization attractive for research.14 Within the organization, the ‘policy people’
became known for constantly asking for information and data, which created tensions
with operation-running people in the DPA (Bellamy et al., 2004: 49).15 Through their
experiences from the field they became convinced that, in order to keep the UN relevant
in the area of peacekeeping, it was necessary to redefine the organization’s strategies
and purposes. As new boundary spanners they established systematic channels for
incorporating knowledge on the consequences of elections and new aspects for postconflict peacebuilding in order to challenge existing principles for mission exit. This
increasing awareness resulted in a rising openness of the organization.
The consultations between the UN and its external research environment intensified
in the years after the publication of the Brahimi report. In discussion rounds and seminars, open to various staff levels from the Secretariat, field missions and member state
representatives, external experts presented the implications of the new knowledge on
exit strategies.16 They facilitated the meetings as knowledge brokers, while the UN
officials could react to the presentations and assess the usefulness of the new knowledge from the organization’s point of view. Written summaries of the discussions and
their recommendations were then disseminated among roughly 4,000 people, including
UN staff, policy-makers in UN member states’ delegations and capitals, academia and
civil society organizations.
At the level of the DPKO senior staff, former Under Secretary-General for
Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guéhenno actively promoted more systematic knowledge
acquisition within the department.17 He was convinced that understanding and changing peacekeeping required a new working and evaluation culture (Benner et al., 2011:
34). With the integration of the Lessons Learned Unit into the Peacekeeping Best
Practices Section (PBPS), now part of the newly established Division for Policy,
Evaluation and Training (DPET), systematic structures for knowledge acquisition have
been further incorporated into the organization. An important method for the PBPS to
interact with external research institutes is to employ individual, independent consultants from a variety of backgrounds for specific projects.18 This tendency to hire temporary
staff with experience in independent research or fieldwork as a form of institutionalized
knowledge acquisition is another type of channel through which knowledge from epistemic communities enters the organization. It is especially present in the PBPS, where
Hirschmann
375
knowledge from external experts is complemented by evaluations and reports from the
field level. Given these multiple channels through which new knowledge entered the
organization, how has a shared understanding of the role of peacebuilding in the context
of exit strategies been developed?
Knowledge interpretation
Development of shared knowledge within the Secretariat. Within the Secretariat, the interdepartmental Executive Committee on Peace and Security (ECPS)19 and the high-level
Policy Committee (PC), both created under Annan, have been significantly involved in
knowledge interpretation. Discussions in the ECPS relied on knowledge provided by the
Brahimi report and adopted the view that the transition to sustainable peace was essential
for a successful mission exit. A shared understanding evolved that peacebuilding aspects
needed to be incorporated in peacekeeping exit strategies. This interpretation, however,
required a revaluation of existing practices and structures as peacebuilding competencies
were contested between the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the DPKO. As a
consequence, integrated missions were developed which were intended to incorporate
central peacebuilding tasks into early mission planning.20 Despite several shortcomings
and setbacks, this introduced the new consensual knowledge on the intertwined relationship between peacekeeping exit and peacebuilding to the DPKO’s operational strategies
as well as on the field level (Campbell and Kaspersen, 2008: 473).21
The weekly meeting agenda of the Secretary-General’s PC, the Secretariat’s highest
decision-making body created by Annan in 2005, includes the concept of peacekeeping
transition in country-specific discussions on how to end an operation, as well as thematic discussions encompassing different aspects of peacebuilding.22 The body’s mode
of consultation was intended to decide on the best of all possible solutions through
argumentative debate: ‘Substantive differences should not be downplayed and clear
arguments and choices should be presented for the Policy Committee’s consideration.’23
Although external members from other UN agencies are admitted if the agenda item
requires, the meetings are usually limited to the committee members and are confidential
in character. This framework supports a mode of deliberation in which the exchange of
arguments leads to the development of shared meanings for the Secretariat’s policy orientation. Based on the organization’s past experiences highlighted in the Brahimi report,
the debates on mission exit have increasingly been shaped by the concept of transition.
These high-level interpretation processes were complemented by various efforts of
knowledge interpretation in other sections within the Secretariat. Under the leadership
of David Harland and Jean-Marie Guéhenno, the DPKO’s Peacekeeping Best Practices
Section (PBPS) launched a doctrine development process in 2005 that relied on a reflective process of discussing and interpreting new knowledge with internal staff and external experts (Ahmed et al., 2007; Bellamy et al., 2004: 141). From this ‘Peace Operations
2010’ reform agenda emerged the ‘Capstone Doctrine’, in which the interdependence
between peacekeeping exit and sustainable peace was confirmed for the first time as
shared knowledge in an official (though non-binding) UN document on the principles
of peacekeeping (cf. United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
376
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
and Department of Field Support (DFS), 2008: ch. 10). The document established a
catalogue of exit criteria that were grounded in peacebuilding tasks, but challenged the
previous consensus within the Secretariat on integrated missions (Gowan, 2006; United
Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field
Support (DFS), 2008: 55). Experiences from the field provided the authors of the document with new arguments against the dominant interpretation of integrated missions as
an adequate instrument for sustainable peace (Benner et al., 2011: 185).
Further consultations between the Secretariat and epistemic communities within the
New Horizon framework in 2009, however, again put integrated missions back in the
centre of the discourse on how to plan peacekeeping exits. Under the new leadership of
Alain Le Roy, the DPKO together with the Department of Field Support (DFS), created
in 2007 by Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, asked researchers from the Center of
International Cooperation (CIC) to develop a paper in order to advance the post-Brahimi
discussion on peacekeeping challenges.24 The conclusions and recommendations of this
‘think piece’ based on experiences from past integrated missions were adopted by the
‘New Partnership Agenda’, which advocated the approach of ‘integrated peacebuilding’
in exit planning (United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO),
2009).25 This was accompanied by the DPKO Guidelines for Integrated Missions 2009,
generated by an inter-departmental working group, which stressed the importance of
Integrated Missions Task Forces (IMTF) on the headquarters level while taking past field
experiences and best practices into account (United Nations Secretary-General, 2009).
The shared knowledge within the UN Secretariat that was developed in discussions of
the Brahimi report and subsequent studies therefore re-introduced integrated missions as
the appropriate policy instrument for achieving sustainable peace through a transitionbased approach to mission exit. In contrast to earlier initiatives, The New Horizon strategy paper explicitly invites UN members, especially troop-contributing and peacekeeping
financing countries, to participate in an open dialogue that would further a ‘shared understanding among all stakeholders of the objectives of UN peacekeeping’ (United Nations
Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), 2009). Thus, the knowledge interpretation process within the Secretariat is still ongoing and increasingly involves other
actors from the UN peace operations system.
Member states’ interpretation of knowledge. Within the General Assembly, the Brahimi
report did not prompt any major reflection processes which could have led to the interpreting of new knowledge on exit strategies. Its Special Committee on Peacekeeping
Operations adopted the report’s recommendations, however, without any reaction to
the issues revealed by new knowledge on peace and post-conflict stabilization.26 The
Committee’s regular ‘Reviews of the question of peacekeeping in all its aspects’ have
not included any references to the role of exit strategies and the implications of peacebuilding thus far. Thus, the question of redefining exit strategies was mainly restricted
to Security Council meetings.
The Security Council debate which took place in November 2000 under the title ‘No
exit without strategy’ essentially centred on the role of peacebuilding and how it should
be connected to multi-dimensional peace operations.27 Although the debate, as usual,
consisted of pre-formulated statements of member states representatives, the speakers
Hirschmann
377
referred to each other’s arguments while developing their own positions. Most statements
endorsed the recommendations of the Brahimi report which suggested a concept of exit
that included more than the short-term strategy of elections.28 A consensus emerged that
a different approach was required in order to enable the organization to pursue the provisions of the Charter, namely to ensure sustainable peace and stabilization. The debate
reveals that the members of the Security Council interpreted the knowledge provided by
Brahimi as useful for addressing the issue of mission exit and enjoyed wide acceptance.
In addition to the traditional mode of debate in the Security Council, a new mechanism of consultation had an important impact on knowledge interpretation. The socalled ‘Arria Formula’ provides a means for SC member states to meet with non-members
in informal, closed-door settings.29 Meetings were opened to other member states and
included the participation of NGOs, a novum in the state-centred debates of the body.
The question of transition was first discussed in an Arria Formula in 2001, in which
speakers from the New York-based epistemic communities and NGOs addressed the
issue with regard to the case of East Timor. This furthered the interpretation of new
knowledge on exit strategies in light of a particular case through a more reflexive
exchange of arguments with the organization’s external environment. In open debates in
2001 and 2004, the SC recognized the importance of long-term actions for sustainable
peace and referred to the relevance of peacebuilding for peacekeeping mandates.30 This
process of opening SC discussions to non-state actors was continued in 2004, when
members of NGOs with rich field experience were for the first time allowed to speak in
a SC session. In this session, their presentations helped to inform the debate on the role
of civil society in peacebuilding processes. The increasing openness of the Security
Council, initiated in the context of discussions on peacebuilding, indicates that the
inclusion of other actors was considered by SC members as appropriate for addressing
the issue of peacekeeping exit strategies.
Knowledge institutionalization
Once acquired and interpreted, the newly developed consensual knowledge had to be
anchored in the organization’s bureaucratic structures and decision-making processes if
it was to cause sustainable institutional change. In the early years after Brahimi, the first
institutionalization steps did not involve fundamental shifts in the existing organizational memory. Instead, different components of peacebuilding were integrated into the
DPKO’s work (see Ahmed et al., 2007: 20). With the establishment of the Inter-Agency
Working Group on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) by the
ECPS in 2005, however, important aspects of the new consensual knowledge became
institutionalized systematically. As a result of the long-lasting intra-organizational discussion and interpretation process on the link between peacebuilding and peacekeeping, this working group highlighted the need for the inclusion of other UN actors.31
It assembled more than 15 sub-agencies, which ensured that the knowledge on the role
of peacebuilding aspects for peacekeeping missions was disseminated throughout the
organization. As the organization’s own peacebuilding expertise is still limited, this
pooling of existing capacities has become even more important for implementing the
new knowledge (see Benner et al., 2011: 213).
378
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
Institutionalization in the discourse. Among the Secretariat’s staff, the term ‘exit strategies’
has increasingly been replaced by ‘transition towards longer-term development and sustainable peace’.32 This linguistic shift in the discourse has since been observable despite
the regular personnel turnover within the administrative structure of the DPKO and a
change in leadership in 2007.33 Both the Capstone Doctrine as well as the New Horizon
document, for example, frequently refer to transition when discussing peacekeeping exit
(United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of
Field Support (DFS), 2008; United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO), 2009). Organizational memory has thus stored the shared understanding of the
role of peacebuilding in the Secretariat’s discourse and has rendered it independent from
individuals.
Institutional anchoring: The Peacebuilding Commission. The establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) at the UN World Summit in 2005 eventually anchored the
new knowledge on sustainable peace institutionally and gave peacebuilding an organizational face.34 The PBC is one of the first serious efforts to combine the long-separated
areas of security and development and is mandated to pool the organization’s capacities
for sustainable peace.35 Discussions within the body itself as well as in the run-up to the
New Horizon initiative refer to the PBC as being important for a ‘sustainable exit’ of
the military components of peace operations.36 The SC debates on peacekeeping and exit
strategies in 2009 and 2010, as well as the body’s resolutions on peacekeeping mandates
and exits, refer to the PBC as being essential for peace operation exit planning.37 This
highlights the successful anchoring of the shared understanding on sustainable peace in
the UN structure. Moreover, with the creation of the Working Group on Lessons Learned
in 2007, an additional learning capacity has been established in the context of the PBC
itself. The Working Group serves as focal point for consultations among member states,
UN staff as well as representatives of the civil society on thematic peacebuilding issues
and working methods of the PBC. It considers the role of the PBC as essential for linking
peacekeeping with peacebuilding tasks and advocates a closer relationship with the SC
in the process of mandating peacekeeping operations.38 The organization thus established external and internal feedback channels that complemented the implementation of
the PBC, which can be characterized as deutero-learning.
Interestingly, the establishment of the PBC as an institutional mechanism for incorporating knowledge on the role of exit strategies for sustainable peace into the UN
structure proved to be another instance of how epistemic communities influence learning. The idea for the PBC emerged out of one of the ‘off-the-record’ thematic dinners
organized by the International Peace Institute (IPI) with members of the UN Security
Council and other relevant states.39 This shows that not only theoretical concepts
but also organizational bodies for institutionalizing new knowledge can be generated
through the influence of epistemic communities.
In addition to the creation of the PBC, the 2010 review process of the body also
demonstrates the influence of epistemic communities. The review responded to rising
criticisms that questioned the efficiency and the legitimacy of the body’s work
(Hirschmann, 2012; Slotin, 2010). New knowledge was acquired through a consultative
process in order to assess whether the institutionalization of peacebuilding has been
Hirschmann
379
successfully anchored. Facilitated by three member state representatives from Ireland,
Mexico and South Africa, a UN-wide open communicative dialogue was initiated
which convened relevant stakeholders and partner organizations.40 Several workshops
were organized throughout 2010 in cooperation with leading members of the epistemic
community, with participants from civil society organizations, member state representatives and experts from academia. This demonstrates the cyclical character of a learning
process that in practice requires continuing feedback loops between the three steps of
knowledge acquisition, interpretation and institutionalization. Moreover, the establishment of a formal review procedure indicates deutero-learning, as it points to an albeit
temporary increase in the organization’s capacities for evaluating the institutionalization
process.
Conclusion
This article has explored how the mechanism of organizational learning can explain the
change in peacekeeping exit strategies from an election-based approach to peacebuilding.
Conceiving learning as a three-step process of knowledge acquisition, knowledge interpretation and knowledge institutionalization, the analysis has revealed differences in the
evolution and the intensity of the individual steps. Knowledge acquisition took place
especially in the years after 2000 and has since then become systematized internally by
the Peacekeeping Best Practices Section (PBPS) as the organization’s structure for
acquiring input from the field and external researchers. The analysis of knowledge
interpretation showed that while the knowledge on sustainable peace was adopted as the
shared understanding equally quickly both within the bureaucratic structure and member states, the Secretariat, however, went through different interpretation phases when
developing appropriate instruments. Knowledge institutionalization was characterized
by the development of new organizational structures and evaluation capacities. With the
establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2005, peacebuilding has become
institutionalized as a necessary element for the transition of a peacekeeping mission.
Additional deutero-learning capacities for evaluating the implementation have been created with the Working Group on Lessons Learned and the 2010 PBC Review Process.
What role did the other diffusion mechanisms such as coercion, competition or emulation play in the shift in peacekeeping exit strategies? Evidence suggests that learning
might not be the sole explanatory mechanism but can be triggered or complemented by
other mechanisms. Coercion was present at least at the beginning of the learning process,
when material and normative pressure exerted by NGOs and member states after failures
in Somalia, Rwanda and Cambodia contributed to a legitimacy crisis of UN peacekeeping in the early 1990s (Hirschmann, 2012). This helped to generate problem awareness
within the organization, a prerequisite for the knowledge acquisition step. Furthermore,
the increased concern of ‘keeping the UN relevant in peacekeeping’ in the early 2000s
indicates that some elements of competition have been present, which stimulated UN
staff to engage in boundary-spanning activities. The mechanism of emulation, however,
would presuppose that another leading organization had introduced the shift towards
peacebuilding earlier, which was not the case as peacebuilding originated within the UN.
Nevertheless, the presence of coercion and competition confirms that organizational
380
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
learning, applied as an ideal-type mechanism in this case study, may actually be combined with other diffusion mechanisms (Börzel and Risse, 2007; Simmons et al., 2006).
Thus, the interplay of different causal mechanisms requires further research to obtain a
complete picture of institutional change in international organizations.
The analysis has furthermore provided some initial hints as to what factors might
account for differences between learning processes. The influence of epistemic communities on international organizations has proved to be relevant in all three steps of
learning. These findings confirm arguments on the openness and the interaction of
international organizations with external actors (Haas, 1992). Additionally, it seems
that both the bureaucratic and intergovernmental levels need to perform distinctive
functions with regard to knowledge acquisition and interpretation. The active leadership of a member state (coalition) and individuals within the Secretariat appears to
determine the intensity of organizational learning processes. This is in line with the
existing literature on the role of individuals for norm entrepreneurship (Benner et al.,
2011; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998: 897). Another important although less concrete
factor is ‘organizational culture’ (Hailey and James, 2002). The debating style within
the organization influences whether different arguments are taken into consideration.
The analysis of the knowledge interpretation process indicates that deliberative settings
(Risse, 2000) are conducive to a learning process. Determining which of these conditions
are necessary or sufficient for organizational learning could complement the existing IR
research on the internal dynamics of international organizations.
Funding
Funding for field research from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) is gratefully
acknowledged.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Monika Heupel, Thomas Risse, Ursula Schröder and Marcel Heberlein for their helpful
comments on earlier versions of the article, as well as the interviewees inside and outside the UN
for sharing their insights. All remaining errors are the responsibility of the author.
Notes
1. For example, UN Doc. S/Res/1230, para. 17; UN Doc. S/Res/1537; UN Doc. S/Res/1573
para. 3, 5; UN Doc. S/Res/1277; United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO) and Department of Field Support (DFS), 2008, United Nations Department for
Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), 2009.
2. UN DPKO and DFS 2011: Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding: Clarifying the Nexus. Available
at:http://www.effectivepeacekeeping.org/sites/effectivepeacekeeping.org/files/11/PeacebuildingPeacekeeping%20Nexus.pdf (last accessed 31 January 2011).
3. In the article herein, no distinction is made between tacit and explicit knowledge as discussed
by quite a number of theorists, since the former can hardly be observed empirically (cf.
Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2006b: 8). Huber’s fourth step, knowledge distribution, is not
regarded as a separate step but instead considered as inherent in the other three steps.
4. For a discussion of individual vs. organizational learning, see Kim (1993).
5. In the literature, the terms ‘epistemic community’ and ‘think tank’ are used interchangeably,
although think tanks constitute a sub-group of epistemic communities.
Hirschmann
381
6. UN Doc. E/AC.51/1994/3.
7. Personal interview with Richard Gowan, Center for International Cooperation (CIC), 23
November 2009, New York.
8. See, for example, Ginifer (1996) and other contributions in the Special Issue of International
Peacekeeping 3(2) under the title ‘Beyond the Emergency: Development within UN Peace
Missions’ that emphasized the role of longer-term developmental aspects for sustainable
peace.
9. This article draws upon a set of 14 qualitative interviews with UN senior staff and officials as
well as with members of the New York based UN-related think tanks. These were conducted
by the author in autumn 2009. According to interviewees, both inside the UN and from the
New York-based research community, the most influential are the Center for International
Cooperation at the New York University, the International Peace Institute, Stimson Center in
Washington, DC, individual researchers from King’s College London, the Centre for
International Studies at Oxford University, Wilton Park, the Canadian Ditchley Foundation,
the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Uppsala University, the Stockholm Peace
Research Institute, the Centre d’études et de recherches internationals in Paris, the Geneva
Centre for Security Policy, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael,
and the Center for International Peace Operations Berlin. The Institute for Security Studies in
South Africa and Kofi Annan Peacekeeping Center in Ghana, which opened in 2004, are
regarded as the most influential non-Western research institutes. The United Nations
University is acting as a boundary-spanner between New York and Japan and thus trying to
include Asian perspectives.
10. For an epistemic community to effectively channel ideas into the organization, it is necessary to know the ‘right people’, those who are influential in the system, and to understand
the politics within the Secretariat. Agenda-setting through outside researchers is therefore
rare (personal interview with Francesco Mancini, International Peace Institute New York
(IPI), 24 November 2009).
11. UN Doc. A/55/305-S/2000/809.
12. Personal interview with William Durch, Stimson Center, Washington, DC, 30 November
2009.
13. Personal interview with Richard Gowan, CIC, 23 November 2009.
14. Personal interview with David Harland, UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
New York, 2 December 2009. He emphasized that this happened while foreseeing that some
of the new knowledge thus acquired would not have been ‘good’ knowledge.
15. By most of the interviewees, the ‘policy people’ were cited as being the most open-minded,
problem-solving members of the organization and acted as boundary-spanners between the
UN and the research community.
16. Personal interview with Francesco Mancini, IPI, 24 November 2009. See, for example, the
seminars organized by IPI in 2001 and 2006, and the Thematic Series Roundtable launched in
September 2009 by the CIC and the Permanent Mission of Canada to the UN (CIC Thematic
Series. Available at http://www.cic.nyu.edu/peace_ssr/thematicseries.html, last accessed
26 April 2010).
17. Personal interview with Francesco Mancini, IPI, New York, 24 November 2009.
18. Telephone interview with Rebecca Jovin, United Nations Peacekeeping Best Practices
Section (PBPS), New York, 10 December 2009.
19. The committee, established in 1997, is chaired by the Department of Political Affairs (DPA)
and meets at the Under-Secretary-General level.
20. Integrated Missions Planning Process. Guidelines endorsed by the Secretary-General.
Available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/9907/IMPP-Revised-Guidelines-130606.pdf (last
accessed 8 April 2010).
382
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
21. UN Doc. A/60/696, part II.
22. Telephone interview with Oliver Ulich, UN Secretariat of the Policy Committee, 30
March 2010.
23. Policy Committee of the Secretary-General. Manual. Available at: http://secint50.un.org/en/
development/other/ecesa/private/documents/2009%20ECESA%20Documents/PC manualJune%2008.pdf (last accessed 8 April 2010).
24. See The ‘New Horizon’ Process. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/newhorizon.
shtml (last accessed 26 April 2010). The article was published under the title ‘Building on
Brahimi: a Coalition for Peacekeeping in an era of Strategic Uncertainty’ (http://www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/pbps/Library/CIC%20New%20Horizon%20Think%20Piece.
pdf).
25. The ‘New Horizon’ Process. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/
newhorizon.pdf (last accessed 26 April 2010).
26. UN Doc. GA/PK/169.
27. UN Doc. S/2000/1072.
28. UN Doc. S/PV.4223.
29. The formula is named after the former Venezuelan ambassador, Diego Arria, who initiated a
first meeting in 1992 (see Paul, 2003).
30. UN Doc. S/PRST/2001/5; UN Doc. S/PV.5041.
31. Introduction to integrated DDR standards. Available at: http://www.unddr.org/iddrs/01/ (last
accessed 15 April 2010).
32. Personal interviews with Richard Gowan, CIC, 23 November 2009, and Rebecca Jovin,
PBPS, 10 December 2009.
33. Personal interviews with UN staff revealed different opinions on the influence of personnel
turnover on knowledge institutionalization: one side argues that it enhances the institutionalization through wide and regular dissemination, others argue that it hinders the building of
systematic organizational memory.
34. The Department of Political Affairs attempted to include peacebuilding in its policy and
organizational structure through the establishment of Peacebuilding Support Offices. However,
it was denied the inclusion in the regular budget and thus had to rely on extra-budgetary means
and donations for funding (cf. Durch et al., 2003).
35. UN Doc. S/Res/1645.
36. The Implications of Peacebuilding and Statebuilidng in UN Mandates. Available at: http://
www.cic.nyu.edu/peace_ssr/docs/Background%20Paper_Implications%20of%20
Peacebuilding%20and%20Statebuilidng%20in%20UN%20Mandates_9%20November%20
2009.pdf (last accessed 26 April 2010).
37. UN Doc. S/PV.6270; UN Doc. SC/9860.
38. See the 2010 report of the Working Group ‘Emerging Lessons and Practices in Peacebuilding
2007–2009’. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pdf/doc_wgll/wgll_report_
english.pdf (last accessed 31 January 2011).
39. Personal interview with Francesco Mancini, IPI, 24 November 2009.
40. UN Doc. A/64/868-S/2010/393.
References
Adebahr C (2009) Learning and Change in European Foreign Policy. The Case of the EU Special
Representatives. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Ahmed S, Keating P and Solinas U (2007) Shaping the future of UN peace operations: Is there a
doctrine in the house? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 2(1): 11–28.
Aldrich HE (1979) Organizations & Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hirschmann
383
Argyris C and Schön DA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barnett M and Finnemore M (1999) The politics, power, and pathologies of international
organizations. International Organization 53(4): 699–732.
Barnett M and Finnemore M (2004) Rules for the World. International Organizations in Global
Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Barnett M, Kim H, O’Donnell M and Sitea L (2007) Peacebuilding: What is in a Name. Global
Governance 13: 35–58.
Bellamy AJ, Williams P and Griffin S (2004) Understanding Peacekeeping. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bellamy AJ and Williams PD (2010) Understanding Peacekeeping. Second Edition. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Benner T, Mergenthaler S and Rotmann P (2011) The New World of UN Peace Operations.
Learning to Build Peace? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–229.
Böhling K (2007) Opening up the Black Box. Organizational Learning in the European
Commission. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Börzel TA and Risse T (2007) The Transformative Power of Europe: The European Union and
the Diffusion of Ideas. Antrag auf Einrichtung einer Kolleg-Forschergruppe. Berlin: Freie
Universität.
Call CT and Cousens EM (2008) Ending wars and building peace: International responses to
war-torn societies. International Studies Perspectives 9: 1–21.
Campbell SP and Kaspersen AT (2008) The UN’s reforms: Confronting integration barriers.
International Peacekeeping 15(4): 470–485.
Caplan R (2005) Exit strategies. In: Caplan R (ed.) International Governance of War-Torn
Territories: Rule and Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–229.
Chesterman S (2004) You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and
State-Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cousens EM (2001) Introduction. In: Cousens EM, Kumar C and Wermester K (eds) Peacebuilding
as Politics: Cultivating Peace in Fragile Societies. Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner,
pp. 1–20.
Diehl PF (2008) Peace Operations. Cambridge: Polity.
Durch WJ (ed.) (2006) Twenty-First-Century Peace Operations. Washington, DC: United States
Institute of Peace.
Durch WJ, Holt VK, Earle CR and Shanahan MK (2003) The Brahimi Report and the Future of
UN Peace Operations. Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson Center.
Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA (eds) (2006a) Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 1–16.
Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA (2006b) Introduction: Watersheds of organizational learning and
knowledge management. In: Easterby-Smith M and Lyles MA (eds) Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Finnemore M and Sikkink K (1998) International norm dynamics and political change.
International Organization 52(4): 887–917.
George AL and Bennett A (2005) Process-tracing and historical explanations. In: George AL and
Bennett A (eds) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 205–232.
Ginifer J (1996) Development and the UN peace mission: A new interface required? International
Peacekeeping 3(2): 3–13.
Gourlay C (2009) EU–UN Cooperation in Peacebuilding. Geneva: United Nations Institute for
Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).
384
Cooperation and Conflict 47(3)
Gowan R (2006) The strategic context: Peacekeeping in crisis, 2006–08. International Peacekeeping
15(4): 453–469.
Gowan R and Johnstone I (2007) New Challenges for Peacekeeping: Protection, Peacebuilding
and the ‘War on Terror’. Coping with Crisis. New York: International Peace Academy (IPA).
Haas EB (1990) When Knowledge is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Haas PM (1992) Introduction. Epistemic communities and international policy coordination.
International Organization 46(1): 1–35.
Haas PM and Haas EB (1995) Learning to learn: Improving international governance. Global
Governance 1(3): 255–284.
Hailey J and James R (2002) Learning leaders: The key to learning organisations. Development in
Practice 12(3&4): 398–408.
Heupel M and Zürn M (2010) Internationale Organisationen und der Schutz fundamentaler
Rechte von Individuen: Skizze eines Forschungsprojekts. Discussion Paper SP IV 2010-303.
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Germany.
Hirschmann G (2012) Peacebuilding in UN peacekeeping exit strategies: Organized hypocrisy and
institutional reform. International Peacekeeping 19(2): forthcoming.
Hofmann C (2008) Learning in Modern International Society. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Howard LM (2008) UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning. The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science 2(1): 88–115.
Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management
Review 35(1): 37–50.
Liese A (2003) Internationale Regulierung im Politikfeld Kinderarbeit. In: Senghaas-Knobloch E,
Dirks J and Liese A (eds) Internationale Arbeitsregulierung in Zeiten der Globalisierung.
Politisch-organisatorisches Lernen in der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation (IAO).
Münster: LIT, pp. 39–125.
Lipson M (2007) Peacekeeping: Organized hypocrisy? European Journal of International
Relations 13(1): 5–34.
Mansfield ED and Snyder J (1995) Democratization and the Danger of War. International Security
20(1): 5–38.
March JG and Olsen JP (1975) The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity.
European Journal of Political Research 3(2): 147–171.
March JG and Olsen JP (2005) Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’. ARENA Working Paper
No. 11. Oslo: Centre for European Studies.
Mayntz R (2004) Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the
Social Sciences 34(2): 237–259.
Paris R (2004) At War’s End. Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 3–31.
Park S (2005) Norm diffusion within international organizations: A case study of the World Bank.
Journal of International Relations and Development 8: 111–141.
Pastor RA (1998) Mediating elections. Journal of Democracy 9(1): 154–163.
Paul J (2003) The Arria Formula. New York: The Global Policy Forum.
Rich R and Newman E (2004) Introduction: Approaching democratization policy. In: Newman E
and Rich R (eds) The UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality. Tokyo:
United Nations University, pp. 3–31.
Riddervold M (2011) From reason-giving to collective action: Argument-based learning and
European integration. Cooperation and Conflict 46(4): 563–580.
Hirschmann
385
Risse T (2000) ‘Let’s argue!’: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization
54(1): 1–39.
Risse T and Sikkink K (1999) The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic
practices: Introduction. In: Risse T, Ropp SC and Sikkink K (eds) The Power of Human Rights.
International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–38.
Rubinstein RA (2008) Peacekeeping Under Fire: Culture and Intervention. Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
Siebenhüner B (2008) Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance.
Global Environmental Politics 8(4): 92–116.
Simmons BA, Dobbin F and Garrett G (2006) Introduction: The international diffusion of
liberalism. International Organization 60(4): 781–810.
Simmons BA, Dobbin F and Garrett G (2008) Introduction: The diffusion of liberalization. In:
Simmons BA, Dobbin F and Garrett G (eds) The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–63.
Slotin J (2010) What Next for the UN Peacebuilding Commission? Comment & Analysis.
New York: International Peace Institute.
Stedman SJ (2002) Introduction. In: Stedman SJ, Rothchild D and Cousens EM (eds) Ending Civil
Wars. The Implementation of Peace Agreements. Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner,
pp. 1–40.
United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) (2009) A New Partnership
Agenda. Creating a New Horizon for UN Peacekeeping. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field
Support (DFS) (2008) United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Principles and Guidelines.
New York: United Nations.
United Nations Secretary-General (2009) IMPP Guidelines: Role of the Headquarters. Integrated
Planning for UN Field Presences. New York: United Nations.
Author Biography
Gisela Hirschmann is a research fellow and PhD candidate at the Social Science Research
Center Berlin. She is currently engaged in a joint project together with Michael Zürn and
Monika Heupel examining the protection of human rights in peace operations. Her dissertation explores the accountability of international organizations.