Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peace Operations, Intervention and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Key Issues and Debates

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Status and the Rise of Brazil

Abstract

Peace operations, as well as humanitarian intervention and its attendant debates, constitute a key element of Brazil’s foreign policy project as an emerging power. This chapter situates Brazilian participation in peace operations, atrocity prevention and the surrounding normative debates, and highlights the key issues this activity has raised for Brazil as it navigates its shifting global role. The analysis lays out the patterns of Brazilian participation in intervention operations and debates has followed, as well the distinctiveness of their contribution and its changing weight in the way the country constructs its narrative of global participation. The role of status seeking as a determinant of that participation is a guiding focus throughout the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ward, Status,

  2. 2.

    Wohlforth et al., “Moral authority, 527–529.

  3. 3.

    Kenkel and Martins, “Emerging Powers”.

  4. 4.

    Wohlforth et al., “Moral authority”, 532–536.

  5. 5.

    Neack, “UN Peace-Keeping”.

  6. 6.

    On Brazil’s peacekeeping history, see Fontoura, O Brasil; and Cardoso, O Brasil. On Brazil and other emerging powers as responsible international stakeholders, see Brimmer, ‘Brazil’; Patrick, “Irresponsible stakeholders”.

  7. 7.

    On how Global South countries have sought status by committing troops, see Krishnasamy (2001); for Northern countries, see Jefferess (2009). Suzuki (2008) directly contrasts both (China and Japan).

  8. 8.

    See: Aguilar, Brasil em missões de paz, 24.

  9. 9.

    Araújo Castro, ‘The UN and the freezing ...’.

  10. 10.

    Patriota, O Conselho de Segurança após a Guerra do Golfo; Amorim, ‘Entre o desequilíbrio...’.

  11. 11.

    See Coleman, “Token Troop Contributions”.

  12. 12.

    A Brazilian General served as ONUMOZ’s Force Commander between February 1993 and February 1994, see: Silva (2005).

  13. 13.

    Fontoura, Brasil: 60 anos de operações de paz, 54.

  14. 14.

    Aguilar, Brasil em missões de paz, 31.

  15. 15.

    Fontoura, Brasil: 60 anos de operações de paz.

  16. 16.

    Malone, Decision making in the United Nations Security.

  17. 17.

    Kenkel, “Brazil and R2P”; Diniz, ‘Brazil’.

  18. 18.

    See: Seitenfus et al. (2007); Hermann (2011).

  19. 19.

    See: Uziel, ‘Brasil’ and ‘Três questões’; Resende, ‘Uma nova abordagem’; and Kenkel, ‘Out of South America’; and ‘South America’s global player’.

  20. 20.

    Fontoura, Brasil: 60 anos de operações de paz, 226. On peace operations and peacebuilding within the broader context of Brazil’s presence in Africa, see Kenkel, ‘Brazil’s peacebuilding’ and Stolte, Brazil’s Africa Strategy.

  21. 21.

    Bruno Góes ‘Brasil desiste de participar de participar de missão de paz na República Centro-Africana’ O Globo, 9 April 2018. Available at: https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/brasil-desiste-de-participar-de-missao-de-paz-na-republica-centro-africana-22573896 [access on 18 August 2018].

  22. 22.

    Comments by Brazilian Army officials during the II Meeting of the Brazilian Peacekeeping Research Network (REBRAPAZ), Rio de Janeiro, July 2018.

  23. 23.

    Brazil’s top-20 placement in 2010 is due to Brazil doubling its contingent as an indication of commitment to Haiti.

  24. 24.

    United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon.

  25. 25.

    On UNIFIL as part of Brazil’s quest for international status, see: Silva et al. (2017).

  26. 26.

    Wheeler (2000b) and Finnemore (2003).

  27. 27.

    UNSC, S/RES794, 1992.

  28. 28.

    UNSC, S/PV. 3145, 1992.

  29. 29.

    Thakur and Weiss, ‘R2P: From Idea to Norm—and Action?’, 24.

  30. 30.

    UNSC, S/RES/770, 1992.

  31. 31.

    Morris ‘Humanitarian Intervention in the Balkans’.

  32. 32.

    UNSC, S/PV.3392, 1994.

  33. 33.

    UNSC, S/PV. 3413, 1994.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    Wheeler, ‘Reflections’.

  36. 36.

    See Franck, ‘Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention’.

  37. 37.

    See Draft Resolution S/1999/328, proposed by Russia, India and Belarus.

  38. 38.

    UNSC, S/PV. 4011, 1999.

  39. 39.

    Deng et al., Sovereignty as responsibility; Evans, The responsibility to protect, 35–37.

  40. 40.

    ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect.

  41. 41.

    Glanville Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect, 192.

  42. 42.

    Weiss, ‘R2P After 9/11’, 742.

  43. 43.

    UNGA, A/60/L.1, 2005.

  44. 44.

    Welsh ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect, 129.

  45. 45.

    http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/component/content/article/35-r2pcs-topics/295-r2pcs-chart-on-government-positions-on-r2p. See also Kenkel, “Brazil and R2P”.

  46. 46.

    Bellamy ‘Realizing the Responsibility to Protect’, 113–114.

  47. 47.

    UNSC, S/RES/1674, 2006.

  48. 48.

    UNGA, A/RES/63/308, 2009.

  49. 49.

    http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/unsc-resolutions-and-statements-with-r2p-table-as-of-august-2016.pdf

  50. 50.

    http://s156658.gridserver.com/media/files/hrc-resolutions-r2p.pdf

  51. 51.

    Hofmann, Ten years R2P, 19.

  52. 52.

    Berti, ‘Forcible intervention in Libya’; Morris, ‘Libya and Syria’.

  53. 53.

    Morris, ‘Libya and Syria’, 1265.

  54. 54.

    Welsh ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’.

  55. 55.

    Job and Shesterinina, ‘China as a Global Norm-Shaper’.

  56. 56.

    UNSC, S/PV.6498, 2011.

  57. 57.

    Stuenkel, ‘BRICS and R2P’; Brockmeier et al., ‘Impact’.

  58. 58.

    UNSC draft resolutions S/2011/612, S/2012/77 and S/2012/538.

  59. 59.

    See Evans, ‘The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria’ and Thakur, ‘Syria and the Responsibility to Protect’.

  60. 60.

    Glanville, Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect.

  61. 61.

    Evans, ‘The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria’; Thakur, ‘Syria and the Responsibility to Protect’; Welsh. ‘The Responsibility to Protect after Libya & Syria’.

  62. 62.

    Permanent Mission of Brazil, ‘Responsibility while protecting’.

  63. 63.

    Kenkel and Stefan, ‘Brazil and RwP’.

  64. 64.

    Kenkel and De Rosa, ‘Localization and Subsidiarity’. See also Acharya, ‘Norm Subsidiarity’ and Benner, ‘Norm entrepreneur’.

  65. 65.

    Pu, Xiaoyu. ‘Socialisation as a Two-way Process’; Stefan, “Non-Western norm shapers.” See also the contributions in Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29 no. 3.

  66. 66.

    Neack, ‘UN Peace-keeping’; Kenkel, ‘South America’s emerging power’.

  67. 67.

    Patrick, ‘Irresponsible Stakeholders’; Bukovansky et al., Special Responsibilities.

  68. 68.

    Kenkel, ‘Brazil and R2P’.

  69. 69.

    Destradi and Kenkel, ‘Responsibility and Reluctance’.

  70. 70.

    Fernández Moreno et al., ‘MINUSTAH’; Siman Gomes, “Analysing interventionism’. Stances on intervention norms are not easily divided using a North-South logic, as Ramesh Thakur (Responsibility to protect; 153–159) has pointed out, and several other members of the Geneva R2P Group of Friends from the Global South made clear in interviews with the primary author in April 2017. Brazil’s position goes beyond a common Global South position to reflect a normative position more critical of Western intentions.

  71. 71.

    Stefan, ‘norm shapers’; for a demonstration of how, for example, the Chinese position differs, see Job and Shesterinina, ‘China as a Global Norm-Shaper’. Indeed, peacebuilding, as noted in Kenkel, ‘Brazil’s peacebuilding’, has been a key way for Brazil to achieve policy effects in the security realm through actions originating in the development arena.

  72. 72.

    Kenkel and De Rosa, ‘Localization and Subsidiarity’.

  73. 73.

    Shesterinina, ‘Evolving Norms of Protection’; Schirm, ‘Leaders’.

  74. 74.

    Kenkel, ‘Brazil’s peacebuilding’.

  75. 75.

    Mello e Souza, Repensando.

  76. 76.

    See notably the contributions in Third World Quarterly 37, no. 4 (2016) on ‘Rising Powers and South-South Cooperation’; and Abdenur and Marcondes, ‘Democratisation by Association’.

  77. 77.

    Kenkel and Martins, ‘Emerging Powers’.

References

  • Abdenur, Adrenalina E., and Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto. 2016. ‘Democratisation by Association? Brazilian Social Policy Cooperation in Africa. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2011. Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly 55: 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, Sérgio Luiz Cruz. 2005. Brasil em missões de paz. São Paulo: Usina do Livro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amorim, Celso. 1999. Entre o desequilíbrio unipolar e a multipolaridade: o Conselho de Segurança da ONU no período pós-Guerra Fria. In O Brasil e as novas dimensões da segurança internacional, ed. Gilberto Dupas and Tullo Vigevani, 87–98. São Paulo: Editora Alfa-Omega.

    Google Scholar 

  • Araújo Castro, João Augusto. 1972. The UN and the Freezing of the International Power Structure. International Organization 26 (1): 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, Alex. 2009. Realizing the Responsibility to Protect. International Studies Perspectives 10 (2): 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, Thorsten. 2013. Brazil as a Norm Entrepreneur: The “Responsibility While Protecting” Initiative. GPPi Working Paper. Berlin: Global Public Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berti, B. 2013. Forcible Intervention in Libya: Revamping the ‘Politics of Human Protection’? Global Change, Peace & Security 26 (1): 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brimmer, Esther. 2014. Is Brazil a Responsible Power or a Naysayer? The Washington Quarterly 37 (3): 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockmeier, Sarah, Oliver Stuenkel, and Marcos Tourinho. 2016. The Impact of the Libya Intervention Debates on Norms of Protection. Global Society 20 (1): 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukovansky, Mlada, Ian Clark, Robyn Eckersley, Richard Price, Christian Reus-Smit, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. 2012. Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, Afonso José Sena. 1998. O Brasil nas Operações de Paz das Nações Unidas. Brasília: FUNAG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Katharina P. 2013. Token Troop Contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. In Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions, ed. Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, 48–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Francis, et al. 1996. Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Destradi, Sandra and Kai Michael Kenkel. 2017. Responsibility and Reluctance: A Fundamental Tension in Emerging Powers’ Approach to Global Governance. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the 58th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association 23 February 2017, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diniz, Eugênio. 2007. Brazil: Peacekeeping and the Evolution of Foreign Policy. In Capacity Building for Peacekeeping: The Case of Haiti, ed. J.T. Fishel and A. Sáenz. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Gareth. 2008. The Responsibility to Protect. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria: Does the Responsibility to Protect Have a Future? In Into the Eleventh Hour, ed. R. Murray and A. Mckay, 18–25. Bristol: E-International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Moreno, Marta, Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga, and Maíra Siman Gomes. 2012. Trapped between Many Worlds: A Post-Colonial Perspective on the UN Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). International Peacekeeping 19 (3): 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontoura, Paulo Roberto Campos Tarrisse da. 2005. O Brasil e as operações de manutenção da paz das Nações Unidas. Brasília: Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Brasil: 60 anos de operações de paz. Rio de Janeiro: Diretoria do Patrimônio Histórico e Documentação da Marinha DPHDM, Marinha do Brasil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T.M. 2003. Interpretation and Change in the Law of Humanitarian Intervention. In Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas, ed. J.L. Holzgrefe and R.O. Keohane, 204–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, Luke. 2014. Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, Breno. 2011. Soberania, não-intervenção e não-indiferença: reflexões sobre o discurso diplomático brasileiro. Brasília: FUNAG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Gregor. 2015. Ten Years of R2P: What doesn’t Kill a Norm Only Makes it Stronger? Contestation, Application and Institutionalization of International Atrocity Prevention and Response. (PRIF Report No. 133). Frankfurt am Main: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICISS. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferess, David. 2009. Responsibility, Nostalgia, and the Mythology of Canada as a Peacekeeper. University of Toronto Quarterly 78 (2): 709–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Job, Brian L., and Anastasia Shesterinina. 2014. China as a Global Norm-Shaper: Institutionalization and Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. In Implementation & World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice, ed. Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard, 144–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, Mary. 2007. Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel, Kai Michael. 2010. South America’s Emerging Power: Brazil as Peacekeeper. International Peacekeeping 17 (5): 644–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Brazil and R2P: Does Taking Responsibility Mean Using Force? Global Responsibility to Protect 4 (1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013a. Brazil. In Providing Peacekeepers. The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions, ed. Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013b. Brazil’s Peacebuilding in Africa and Haiti. Journal of International Peacekeeping 17 (3-4): 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013c. Out of South America to the Globe: Brazil’s Growing Stake in Peace Operations. In South America and Peace Operations. Coming of Age, ed. Kai Michael Kenkel, 85–110. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Felippe De Rosa. 2015. Localization and Subsidiarity in Brazil’s Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect. Global Responsibility to Protect 7 (3/4): 325–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Marcelle Trote Martins. 2016. Emerging Powers and the Notion of ‘International Responsibility’: Moral Duty or Shifting Goalpost? Brazilian Political Science Review 10 (1).: n.p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel, Kai Michael, and Cristina Stefan. 2016. Brazil and the “Responsibility while Protecting” Initiative: Norms and the Timing of Diplomatic Support. Global Governance 22 (1): 41–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ki-moon, Ban. 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. United Nations Document A/63/677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnasamy, Kabilan. 2001. Recognition for Third World Peacekeepers: India and Pakistan. International Peacekeeping 8 (4): 56–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, David. 1997. Haiti and the International Community: A Case Study. Survival 39 (2): 126–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Decision-Making in the UN Security Council. The Case of Haiti, 1990–1997. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mello e Souza, André de. 2014. Repensando a Cooperação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Nicholas. 2004. Humanitarian Intervention in the Balkans. In Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, ed. Jennifer M. Welsh, 98–119. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Justin. 2013. Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum. International Affairs 89 (5): 1265–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neack, Laura. 1995. UN Peace-Keeping: In the Interest of Community or Self? Journal of Peace Research 32 (2): 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, Stewart. 2010. Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers. Foreign Affairs 89 (6): 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriota, Antonio de Aguiar. 1998. O Conselho de Segurança após a Guerra do Golfo: a articulação de um novo paradigma de segurança coletiva. Brasília: Instituto Rio Branco/Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations in New York. 2011. Responsibility while Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept. United Nations Document A/66/551–S/2011/701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resende, Lucas Pereira. 2013. Uma nova abordagem para o estudo do engajamento do Brasil nas operações de paz da ONU. Política Externa 21 (3): 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, Norma Breda dos. 2002. Dez anos no deserto: a participação brasileira na primeira missão de paz das Nações Unidas. In Israel-Palestina; a construção da paz vista de uma perspectiva global, ed. Gilberto Dupas and Tullo Vigevani, 263–285. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirm, Stefan A. 2010. Leaders in Need of Followers: Emerging Powers in Global Governance. European Journal of International Relations 16 (2): 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitenfus, Ricardo Antônio da Silva, Cristine Koehler Zanella, and Pâmela Marconatto Marques. 2007. O Direito Internacional repensado em tempos de ausências e emergências: a busca de uma tradução para o princípio da não-indiferença. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 50 (2): 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shesterinina, Anastasia. 2016. Evolving Norms of Protection: China, Libya and the Problem of Intervention in Armed Conflict. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 812–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, Lélio Gonçalves Rodrigues da. 2005. Uma missão de paz na África. Rio de Janeiro: Biblioteca do Exército.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, Antonio Ruy Almeida, Carlos Chagas Vianna Braga, and Danilo Marcondes. 2017. The Brazilian Participation in UNIFIL: Raising Brazil’s Profile in International Peace and Security in the Middle East? Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 60 (2): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siman Gomes, Maíra. 2016. Analysing Interventionism Beyond Conventional Foreign Policy Rationales: The Engagement of Brazil in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29 (3): 852–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefan, Cristina G. 2017. On Non-Western Norm Shapers: Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting. European Journal of International Security 2 (1): 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolte, Christina. 2015. Brazil’s Africa Strategy: Role Conception and the Drive for International Status. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stuenkel, Oliver. 2014. The BRICS and the Future of R2P: Was Syria or Libya the Exception? Global Responsibility to Protect. 6 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, Shogo. 2008. Seeking ‘Legitimate’ Great Power Status in Post-Cold War International Society: China’s and Japan’s Participation in UNPKO. International Relations 22 (1): 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, Ramesh. 2013. R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers. The Washington Quarterly 36 (2): 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Syria and the Responsibility to Protect. In Into the Eleventh Hour, ed. R. Murray and A. Mckay, 38–43. Bristol: E-International Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, Ramesh, and T. Weiss. 2009. R2P: From Idea to Norm—And Action? Global Responsibility to Protect 1 (1): 22–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uziel, Eduardo. 2010. Brasil, Conselho de Segurança e operações de manutenção a paz da ONU. Política Externa 19 (1): 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Três questões empíricas, uma teórica e a participação do Brasil em operações de paz das Nações Unidas. Política Externa 14 (4): 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Steven. 2017. Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Thomas G. 2006. R2P After 9/11. Wisconsin International Law Journal 24 (3): 741–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, Jennifer. 2014. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Catalyzing Debate and Building Capacity. In Implementation and World Politics: How International Norms Change Practice, ed. Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard, 124–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. The Responsibility to Protect after Libya & Syria. Daedalus 145 (4): 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000a. Reflections on the Legality and Legitimacy of NATO’s Intervention in Kosovo. International Journal of Human Rights 4 (34): 144–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. Saving strangers. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Paul D., and Alex Bellamy. 2012. Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force. Global Governance 18: 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William C., Benjamin de Carvalho, Halvard Leira, and Iver B. Neumann. 2017. Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies 44 (3): 536–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoyu, Pu. 2012. Socialisation as a Two-Way Process: Emerging Powers and the Diffusion of International Norms. Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (4): 341–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Kai Michael Kenkel

  2. Brazilian War College (ESG), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto

  3. Bahia State University, Paulo Afonso, Brazil

    Mikelli Marzzini Lucas Alves Ribeiro

Authors
  1. Kai Michael Kenkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danilo Marcondes de Souza Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mikelli Marzzini Lucas Alves Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Paulo Esteves

  2. Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Oslo, Norway

    Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert

  3. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Oslo, Norway

    Benjamin de Carvalho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kenkel, K.M., de Souza Neto, D.M., Ribeiro, M.M.L.A. (2020). Peace Operations, Intervention and Brazilian Foreign Policy: Key Issues and Debates. In: Esteves, P., Gabrielsen Jumbert, M., de Carvalho, B. (eds) Status and the Rise of Brazil. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21660-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation