The UN’s Adaptive Legacy: A Formula Also for the Future of Peace Operations?

History shows that the UN and its instruments have repeatedly adapted to shifting geopolitical realities. Today’s crisis is political, financial, and conceptual. To remain relevant, the UN must draw on its capacity for reinvention, embracing pragmatic innovation, political responsibility and solidarity across regions. Participants highlighted that UN peace operations often constitute the difference between fragile peace and continued war. The future of peace operations depends not only on reforming structures but on renewing a shared commitment to collective action for peace. The various UN reform initiatives provide an opportunity to renew, realign and re-energise how the UN system delivers on peace and security.

1. A Reality Check for Peace Operations: The current liquidity crisis facing the UN presents an acute test of the resilience and adaptability of peace operations. This financial strain extends to the wider UN system and the entire humanitarian-development-peace nexus. In this financially austere context, doing more with less is neither realistic nor responsible. While expectations must be managed carefully, peace operations should seek to transform challenges into opportunities and strive to do things differently with the resources available to them.
2. Navigating the Politics: Debates over the “core tasks” of peace operations risk becoming overly technical and detached from reality, devolving into ideological disagreements rather than pragmatic problem-solving. What matters most is context: understanding the political and conflict dynamics in each setting and designing interventions that are both integrated and politically smart. This requires stronger political coherence and consistent backing from the UN Security Council. It is in the long-term interest of all Member States to reinforce multilateral mechanisms, rather than treating peace operations as arenas for short-term zero-sum competition. Within the UN Secretariat, a more candid, forward-leaning posture is needed: one that communicates plainly, resists bureaucratic self-preservation and champions the UN’s assembling role, broad toolbox of instruments and proven ability to adapt and remain relevant.
3. Restoring the UN’s Political Role: Peacemaking must be made more central in the UN’s engagement, in coordination with and complementing regional and bilateral efforts. This means moving beyond hampering risk aversion, taking calculated initiatives and rebuilding trust with both conflict parties and affected populations. The UN’s impartiality remains one of its greatest comparative advantages, but it must be matched by proactive and visible political leadership that demonstrates responsibility, courage and creativity.
4. Further Integrating the Peace and Security Toolbox: Sustained investment is essential to preserve the UN’s institutional capacity to deliver on its peace and security mandate. The UN must be able to mobilise capabilities more flexibly across the full spectrum of peace operations, with mission design guided by evolving needs and operational realities. A more networked and collaborative approach is required ensuring that relevant actors, including UN country teams and regional partners, work in an integrated manner under an overarching political strategy that leverages their respective comparative advantages. While the most critical challenges facing peace operations lie beyond the control of the Secretariat, others stem from internal structural arrangements and outdated approaches to mission planning and budgeting. These long-recognised constraints should be addressed within the forthcoming Review and the UN80 initiative, with key reforms initiated early in the tenure of the next Secretary-General.
5. Relations with Host Countries: The varying levels of support and engagement from host countries continue to pose a significant challenge for peace operations. The UN must deepen its understanding of how host governments and societies perceive, negotiate and derive value from the presence of peace operations. Genuine national ownership should extend beyond implementation to include also the mandating and planning phases of missions. Host countries should be regarded not as beneficiaries, but as partners and co-architects of the strategies aimed at stabilising their societies. In turn, host governments must demonstrate sustained commitment and responsibility in supporting peace operations throughout their entire lifecycle. Accountability for mandate delivery should be more evenly shared between the UN Security Council, host authorities and peace operations. If this shift could be achieved it would significantly improve the political and operational prerequisites for peace operations. At the same time, peace operations must recognise that host countries are not monolithic: the interests of a government may not always reflect those of the broader population. Peace operations must remain vigilant to ensure they do not become instruments of regime preservation, but rather agents of inclusive and legitimate peacebuilding.