Description
Providing direct support to host state security forces is a common feature of multilateral peace and stability operations, often with the goal of bolstering state capacity and authority amid ongoing conflict. This goal often co-exists alongside multilateral commitments to uphold international human rights norms and, in some cases, actively protect civilians from violence. Reconciling these goals becomes challenging when local security forces are responsible for serious human rights violations, including attacks on civilians. Drawing on evidence from UN stabilization operations, this article develops the concept of protection dilemmas to capture situations in which individuals must juggle competing objectives related to human rights and civilian protection, on the one hand, and direct support for host state security forces on the other. It then explores the defining characteristics of these dilemmas and the strategies that field personnel use to cope with them. I argue that protection dilemmas arise out of conflicting normative commitments and the multilateral process by which mandates are crafted. They are iterative, recurring, and interconnected, and they manifest across tactical and operational levels within a mission. To manage them, field personnel draw on skills and practical knowledge gained through experience to interpret formal guidance. Recognizing the origins, characteristics, and impact of protection dilemmas sheds light on the relationship between norms and practices in global security governance, while also providing useful insights for practitioners and policymakers.
