What question did this study set out to answer?

This article explores how peacekeeping has evolved into a strategy for proxy intervention, aligning national security interests of troop-contributing countries.

June 11, 2026Open Access

Making the Case for Peacekeeping as Proxy Intervention

Key Points

This article explores how peacekeeping has evolved into a strategy for proxy intervention, aligning national security interests of troop-contributing countries.
Analyzes case studies from Mali and Somalia to demonstrate the use of peacekeeping for political and security objectives.
Examines the implications of militarized peacekeeping on impartiality and mission cohesion.
Finds that troop-contributing countries often use peacekeeping missions to project influence and secure borders.
Shows that the trend undermines the original goals of peacekeeping, impacting its effectiveness in conflict resolution.

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, peacekeeping has shifted from impartial mediation toward militarised intervention, a trend accelerating after 9/11. The article develops the concept of proxy peacekeeping to argue that peacekeeping can function as a form of proxy intervention, enabling troop-contributing countries (TCCs) to advance national security interests and manage regional threats under multilateral cover. Drawing on cases from Mali and Somalia, it shows how neighbouring TCCs instrumentalise peacekeeping to project influence, secure borders, and externalise risk, undermining mission impartiality and cohesion. It concludes by questioning proxy peacekeeping as a collective response to contemporary conflict management and resolution.

Making the Case for Peacekeeping as Proxy Intervention

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study