Whether the UN should be the agency in charge of organizing such a force is debatable, however. The experience of UN led "non-traditional peacekeeping operations" leaves much to be desired. As Thomas Weiss, an otherwise active supporter of the United Nations has commented: "Without putting too fine a point on it, the United Nations is incapable of exercising command and control over combat operations. The capacity to plan, support, and command peace-keeping, let alone peace-enforcement, missions is scarcely greater now than during the Cold War. And this situation will not change in the foreseeable future."52 Recognition of this problem has led others to propose setting up a wholly separate international organization for this purpose that the UN could sub-contract for its needs.53 In the same vein, others see value in the international community employing private combat forces in certain situations.54
V: Some Final Thoughts
That the question of humanitarian intervention has become such a contentious issue is hardly surprising. Indeed, it would have been more surprising if it had not. There are still too many conflicting interests and values at work in the world―and some would argue that this is good thing―which reflect not just political and cultural differences but also varying levels of state development, for there not to be fundamental disagreement.
As the foregoing discussion has endeavored to demonstrate, much can be learned from the everyday practice of domestic governance and applied with appropriate modifications to the global level. This argument is clearly controversial and not likely to be accepted either easily or quickly. As a start, however, the following guiding propositions are advanced.
・Bottom up is better than top-down. The rules of governance and along with the rules of force will be sustainable only to the extent that they are based on a genuine international consensus or groundswell of global public opinion. This can obviously be steered and nurtured in a particular direction but it should not be pushed too far too fast or there is likely to be a backlash.
・Minimalism is better than Maximalism. The temptation, particularly after a successful humanitarian intervention is to make grand pronouncements that promise more than can be delivered. Care must be taken not to "overreach" or expectations will raised that cannot be realistically met leading to dashed hopes that fuel only resentment and despair.
・Multilateralism is better than Unilateralism. While there will always be reasons where national interests will dictate the unilateral use of force, multilateral sanction if not support should be the norm for all cases beyond the defense of national territory. In every case, UN Authorization is better than none.
・Some Forms of Multilateralism are better than Others. While bigger may not always be better when it comes to operational efficiency, this is clearly the case for garnering international legitimacy. If not the UN, then one of the major regional organizations, and if this is not possible, then "coalitions of the willing" sanctioned by it. There is a difference, after all, between a posse and a lynch mob when it comes to enforcement.
