Description
What underlying assumptions about ‘war’ exist in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping? How have these assumptions changed over time? What have these assumptions meant for how peacekeeping is shaped? In this paper, I focus on the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the genealogical approach I take on understanding ‘war’ in UN peacekeeping. An interpretivist way of studying war does not see military and political action, behaviour and institutions as given, but seeks to question the meaning-making behind how this came to be. In her research on how peacekeeping comes to be known, Henry (2024, p. 3) writes that we should understand peace operations “not as a neutral and noble mission to maintain global peace and security, but […] as a complex and multifaceted power project”. I explore how genealogy help us understand this. Genealogy is not a history of what has been said and done, but what has constituted the assumptions and knowledges that serves as basis for what has been said and done. I ask not what war is, but instead how war has been spoken of and known throughout UN peace operations history, and why it seems to be so difficult to speak of war in the UN.
