In recent decades, soldiers from dozens of nations have been involved in multinational peacekeeping operations (PKOs) led by the United Nations (UN) or regional organisations in a major effort to promote peace. In most cases, the environments are scenes of recently concluded internal conflicts, where a considerable level of violence remains, and UN troops need to protect themselves, UN and humanitarian personnel, and vulnerable civilians against attacks and hostile actions. In these scenarios, although most troops perform well, some contingents fail in their tasks, compromising the prospects of mission success. As UN Security Council Resolution 2518 (2020) points out, national-imposed caveats, poor military leadership, and a lack of willingness to act assertively are among the root causes of the problem. All of these limitations are linked to the issue of peacekeeping troops’ motivation.

Soldiers’ motivations in PKOs and the role of legitimacy

Several combat-motivating factors apply to PKOs, including the sense of duty, discipline, leadership, and unit cohesion. In addition, notions about the legitimacy of their role are a strong motivator for soldiers, particularly in international peace operations, where defending their homeland is not in question. In such circumstances, the blue helmets perceive their legitimacy in using force as coming from the cause of peace.

In previous research, I surveyed Brazilian blue helmets who served with the UN in Haiti in 2005 to assess the relevance of combat motivation factors. The soldiers were presented with five factors, each summarised in a short statement, and asked to indicate the ones that motivated them to engage with armed gangs in the mission. They could add other factors. The responses that received more mentions were: (1) legitimacy of the cause (“It was important for peace and to help the people of Haiti.”); (2) sense of duty (“It was my duty, and I had to stick to it.”); (3) unit cohesion (“I had to help my platoon fulfil its mission.”); (4) efficiency of one’s force (“I relied on my armament and equipment and our armoured personnel carriers, which were far superior to the weapons used by the gangs.”); and (5) leadership (“I followed my platoon leader.”). 

In another study in 2023 with a similar focus, blue helmets from high-performing peacekeeping battalions in Haiti, Lebanon, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were asked about the relevance of four motivating factors associated with the UN’s legitimacy: the legality of the UN’s use of force in PKOs, the host country’s consent to the peacekeeping mission, the local population’s perception that the mission is beneficial, and the cause of peace and support for people in need. The cause of peace and support for people in need was most often cited as the most important or second most important factor in motivating soldiers. It was followed by the sense that the local population perceived the peace mission as beneficial.

States’ attitude as an endorsement of UN legitimacy to use force for peace

For the UN’s legitimacy in using force not to be tarnished in the eyes of peacekeepers, troop-contributing countries (TCCs) must understand that participation in peacekeeping missions implies a commitment to peace and UN objectives and be prepared for the efforts that this entails. Hence, the importance of deploying military contingents without restricting the UN’s use of them in the event of risky missions. The UN Force Commander must have full operational command of his troops for critical tasks, such as protecting civilians from armed attacks.

However, current times bring a series of complications to achieving basic consensus in peacekeeping. As pointed out by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations in a recent interview, the biggest challenge to peacekeeping nowadays is divisions between UN member states, particularly those in the UN Security Council, troop contributors, and missions’ host countries, regarding the firm and united support that must be extended to the peacekeeping missions.

It must also be considered that the homeland is always the first loyalty of soldiers. Therefore, only when their country has a peace-oriented rationale can soldiers draw motivation from the UN’s legitimate use of force for peace. However, the literature on UN peacekeeping often presents selfish reasons for states to participate in PKOs, such as seeking prestige, exercising hegemony, or supplementing defence budgets through UN reimbursements. These motives are unlikely to generate sincere efforts and motivate troops to fight for peace.

Key recommendations

Questions of legitimacy continually shape discourses to engage armed forces in wars to protect state interests. However, political authorities frequently fail to refer to legitimacy upon sending military contingents to PKOs. Considering that legitimacy is crucial for the endorsement of government decision-making and to motivate soldiers during challenging engagements, it is recommended that the commitment of troops to the UN be preceded by appropriate discussions at the state level and announced with relevant justifications.

It is also recommended that, in the education and training of soldiers, greater attention be given to the circumstances that make the use of force in UN PKOs legitimate, such as legality, consent, and the protection of vulnerable and threatened populations. Activities to develop and enhance the sense of legitimacy concern the UN and the TCCs, but with specific functions. The UN guides the peacekeeping training and assesses the preparedness of contingents. On the other hand, the soldiers’ affective and psychological preparation is the member states’ sole responsibility. Therefore, TCCs should incorporate these aspects into peacekeeping training programs and methodologies to explore them further. Ultimately, troop contributors must create the conditions for a process of military socialisation that leads to the development of subtle and nuanced aspects of the legitimacy concept, such as the appreciation for the cause of peace and solidarity with populations in a state of vulnerability.

A final recommendation is linked to the notion of cosmopolitanism. As a concept that views the interrelation between human groups as governed by universal values, cosmopolitanism connects with the legitimacy concept through the UN’s ideals and the cause of peace. Thus, the legitimacy of using force to keep peace and protect civilians in PKOs and the cosmopolitan attitude of empathy towards vulnerable foreign nationals become reinforcing motivations. However, soldiers’ motivation by cosmopolitanism is not a question of military education or training. They need to assimilate cosmopolitan attitudes from their national societies.

Keywords: United Nations, UN, UN peacekeepers, peacekeeping troops, peace, conflict, conflict resolution