The extent to which this rhetorical support translates into outcomes in the Security Council and lifesaving work on the ground remains to be seen.
The extent to which this rhetorical support translates into outcomes in the Security Council and lifesaving work on the ground remains to be seen.
The New Agenda for Peace serves as a stark warning that the damage being done now will have significant implications for humanity’s future wellbeing, safety, and stability.
Asif R. Khan, Director of UNDPPA’s Policy and Mediation Division and a lead penholder of the New Agenda for Peace, reflects on the policy brief and next steps ahead of the Summit of the Future.
The New Agenda for Peace provides an opening for continental actors to advance priorities at the global level. However, this requires the AU to deliver on revamping its own multilateral system as a springboard to reforming global multilateralism.
Bold language on transforming patriarchy is not matched with concrete proposals to advance the WPS agenda and gender equality more broadly.
There seems to be a disconnect between the overall diagnosis of the New Agenda for Peace and its prescriptions for peace operations.
The New Agenda for Peace sets a clear vision for reforms, but does not go into the details on how to achieve them. This cautious approach is a reflection of the secretary-general’s belief that it is the role of the UN to support—not make—the decisions of member states.
The adoption of FFPs in Latin America is an opportunity to see how the region reimagines international feminist agendas and translates local feminist advocacy to the international arena.
Many Western countries and BRICS members may have more shared interests than the doomsday headlines suggest.
The next generation deserves a renewed effort to make the Summit of the Future a success.
Even though civil society has been impacted by the UN counterterrorism architecture, opportunities for a broad range of civil society actors to meaningfully engage with counterterrorism programming and policy-making remain limited at best.
The difficulties inherent in the liquidation and reconfiguration of the UN presence in Mali will be exacerbated by the lack of preparation and tension with the host government.
A peacekeeping transition that mitigates the risks to civilians to the greatest extent possible is the UN’s best chance to continue implementing the principles of the Charter.
The primacy of geopolitics can no longer be ignored.
Contrary to perceptions, there is compelling scientific evidence in the IPCC’s AR6 report that climate change constitutes a risk to peace and security.
Pakistan could become a vanguard of climate resilience, but it faces tremendous hurdles.
China will likely continue to shape peacekeeping along its preferences for a more technical and less overt political foreign policy tool.
UN mission transitions still result in gaps in the protection of civilians experiencing violent conflict.
One of the most enduring lessons learned over the past 75 years of peacekeeping is that peace cannot be imposed.
Greater sharing of the pen within the Security Council could help mend perceptions of partiality and facilitate more inclusivity.
For AI to be ethical and be a vehicle for the common good, it needs to eliminate any explicit and implicit biases, including on the gender front.
A stable peace deal requires the support of the Ukrainian people for both legal and political reasons.
Survey data does not reveal a major, widespread drop in the UN’s legitimacy over the past few years.
The Global Observatory provides timely analysis on peace and security issues by experts, journalists, and policymakers. It is published by the International Peace Institute. The views expressed here represent those of the contributors and not IPI.
The International Peace Institute is an independent, non-profit organization working to strengthen inclusive multilateralism for a more peaceful and sustainable planet.