National Staff and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping: Facilitative and Direct Agency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although far less visible than international peacekeepers, locally recruited ‘national staff’ play a vital role in UN peacekeeping and exercise agency with respect to core mandated tasks, including the Protection of Civilians (PoC). National staff bring critical local knowledges and communicative access advantages into missions but hold subordinate status within them. To fully capture their agency, I draw on feminist scholarship to conceptualize ‘facilitative agency’ (enabling others to achieve otherwise unavailable impacts) and highlight its importance in UN peacekeeping alongside the ‘direct agency’ of engaging local counterparts to produce outcomes. Feminist scholarship also helps surface the tensions surrounding the distribution of facilitative and direct agency in bureaucratic hierarchies. Drawing on 203 interviews in four UN missions (MINURSO, MINUSCA, MONUSCO and UNFICYP), I show that national staff often have facilitative agency and may also have direct agency. I suggest that the type(s) of agency national staff have are shaped by their position type, work location and the specialization and/or transferability of their expertize and access, but also by international peacekeeper gatekeeping. I substantiate this argument by providing examples of national staff facilitative and direct agency for physical and political PoC and noting the conditions creating and limiting these types of agency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it