In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia
In The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia, Brendan Howe and Boris Kondoch bring together distinguished authors with extensive Northeast Asian backgrounds to offer a diverse and comprehensive evaluation of when it is right, from regional perspectives, to use force in international relations.

The use of force in international relations has been severely curtailed by pragmatic considerations of international order, and further constrained by positive international law. In Northeast Asia, the prohibition of aggression has remained uncontested. Strict adherence to non-intervention in Northeast Asia has, however, increasingly come under attack from internal and external normative communities. The contributors, therefore, use regional legal, normative, cultural, and historical insights to shed light on the contemporary positions of Northeast Asian political communities with regard to the use of force.
Peacekeeping and the Asia-Pacific explores the politics, challenges, and future of UN peacekeeping operations from the Asia-Pacific. The first section looks at contributions from the sub-regions: Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. The second section of the book looks at individual country case studies including: Australia, Solomon Islands, Japan, and Thailand. The third, and concluding, section consists of a theoretical summary on the central conceptual theme of Asian motivations for PKO contributions.
This content was originally published in vols. 18:3-4 and 19:3-4 of the Journal of International Peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping operations are the most visible activity of the United Nations and widely considered an important tool for conflict resolution. For historical, cultural, and political reasons, however, states from Northeast Asia have been hesitant in their support, and limited in their contributions. Yet Northeast Asian regional actors are no longer as resistant to collective security and international governance initiatives as they have historically been portrayed. With the exception of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (dprk), a rogue regime often at loggerheads with the United Nations (un), and the Republic of China (roc) in Taiwan, a province currently denied independent un membership, the three remaining regional powers, the People’s Republic of China (prc), Japan, and the Republic of Korea (rok), have become increasingly engaged in regional and global peace operations. This engagement has picked up pace since the end of the Cold War in 1991. This article, therefore, examines the contributions to un peacekeeping operations by these three Northeast Asian powers. It further explores the motivational impetuses for policy changes and increasing contributions. Finally the paper assesses both the obstacles to, and the potential for future peacekeeping contributions emanating from the region.

In: Journal of International Peacekeeping

This paper traces experiences of the Royal Thai Armed Forces in un peacekeeping missions. A relatively small troop contributor at first, Thailand later took a high-profile role in the un operations in East Timor during 1999–2005, and has continued since then to support several un peacekeeping forces. The paper first discusses the rationales, development, and current status of Thailand’s contributions. It then goes on to explore how, and to what extent, tasks and duties assigned under the un peacekeeping framework to the dispatched forces, as well as experiences and lessons the Thai armed forces gained from their participation in missions, contribute to the diffusion of norms and the development of functional competencies relating to peacekeeping and human security protection within the Thai military. The paper finds that while the dispatched forces received invaluable benefits in terms of prestige, economic rewards and learning experiences from the peacekeeping operations under the un command, including approaches to humanitarian assistance during the time of acute conflict and monitoring human rights violations, the human security norm underlying these functional competencies has yet to be fully internalized by the military as an institution. Yet, there are some areas, especially in civil-military affairs where competencies developed from the internal security operations and international peacekeeping operations can be mutually reinforcing.

In: Journal of International Peacekeeping
In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia
In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia
In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia
In: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force in Northeast Asia