What do we mean by modular approaches to UN peace operations?

Building blocks versus networked operations

Oct 09, 2025

Lire en français ici (via Observatoire Boutros-Ghali)

Talk of modular approaches to peace operations is in the air. Modular approaches have been invoked several times in recent Security Council debates, but often without much precision on what modular peace operations would look like and how they would function. As modular approaches are usually invoked by individuals dissatisfied with existing approaches to peacekeeping operations and special political missions (as well as non-UN forces and UN support offices), the use of these references can be understood as rhetorical shorthand for frustration with the status quo in peace operations.

The review of peace operations provides an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric and to actually examine how modular approaches could be put into practice. In fact, there are two very different concepts that have been described as modular approaches, one that focuses on modularity in mission design (a “building blocks” concept) and one that focuses on modularity in mandate implementation (a “networked” concept). It’s worth unpacking both of these approaches so that Member States and the Secretariat have a better understanding of what each of these entails so they can decide which—if either—to pursue for peace operations in the future.

Modules as building blocks

The “building blocks” concept calls for constructing peace operations using a menu of predefined models. This school of thought gained prominence through the October 2024 report commissioned by the UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO) titled The Future of Peacekeeping, New Models, and Related Capabilities.

The Future of Peacekeeping report opens with a good overview of the historical evolution, achievements, and challenges of UN peacekeeping. As a way forward, the report presents 30 “models” for peacekeeping operations, each representing “a package of a desired strategic goal, a cluster of potential mandated tasks, and a brief list of related capabilities to enable its successful deployment” which can be deployed alone or in combination in response to specific situations. It also outlines six “modalities”—i.e., standalone missions, sequenced missions, parallel deployments, joint operations, hybrid operations, or UN-authorized missions—through which these models could be deployed.

List of 30 proposed models for future peacekeeping missions — The list of 30 models from the *Future of Peacekeeping* report

The report makes three arguments in favor of its approach:

First, the models provide a condensed and useful reminder of the numerous activities that UN peacekeepers have been asked to undertake historically, most of which remain relevant today. Second, looking at the models and other options can help crystalize the forward thinking that will be necessary to meet new and emerging threats to international peace and security, for both the Security Council and potential host states. Finally, the different modalities and a modular approach highlight the many ways of assembling peace- keeping operations, helping to tailor missions to unique situations, as well as assisting them to adapt over time, and think through how to work with a wide range of partners, both inside and beyond the UN system.1

However, the concept set out in the report is only able to achieve the first of the three benefits asserted. Indeed, the menu of models and modalities presented may potentially be a valuable aide-mémoire for Member States. But it doesn’t do much to help them think about how peace operations can respond to new and emerging threats, given that—with the exception of the proposed cybersecurity mission model (model 27), which reads more as wishful thinking rather than something the UN would actually be able to deliver on—all of the models and modalities draw from past or present practice. Moreover, the report does not explore interdependencies or contraindications amongst mandated tasks, of the resource or support requirements for individual models, or of the political and operational considerations underpinning whether a model should be considered and how it would be implemented.

Ultimately, the consideration of mandated tasks in clusters is the main innovation presented in the report, given that the manner in which a mission would be planned, designed, and budgeted under this approach would be largely the same as in the status quo. While useful from a conceptual perspective, a “building blocks” approach is unlikely to address the persistent operational challenges facing peace operations, especially since the definition of discrete models risks reinforcing counterproductive elements of existing approaches to mission design and mandate implementation, including the lack of prioritization of political solutions as well as templated thinking about mission design. Moreover, the six modalities also perpetuate the longstanding mission-centric conception of peace operations rather than an approach that focuses on bringing together capacities and expertise from across the UN system and external partners.

Networked approaches to mandate implementation

There is, however, a different concept of a “networked” approach that focuses on leveraging existing sources of capacity and expertise to the extent possible, including those from outside the Secretariat. This is the approach recommended in A New Agenda for Peace, which argued that

Peace operations must be significantly more integrated and should leverage the full range of civilian capacities and expertise across the United Nations system and its partners, as part of a system of networked multilateralism and strengthened partnerships.2

This call is echoed in the call in the UN80 workstream report to move to “networked multidimensional operations”.

The idea of modular approaches as a network involving missions and other partners stems from a 2022 paper on modular approaches to peacekeeping operations.3 This “networked” approach to mandate implementation shifts away from the standard approach today of having missions responsible for implementing all aspects of a mandate from the Security Council or General Assembly. It takes into account the fact that many of the peacebuilding activities undertaken by missions are also undertaken by the agencies, funds and programmes of the UN country team or other partners, including regional organizations such as the African Union and European Union.4 Where relevant partners possessing the expertise and comparative advantage for specific peacebuilding tasks are present, missions would simply engage those partners for the implementation of the relevant parts of the mandate rather than doing so themselves.5

Org chart of a modular mission — Generic org chart for a “networked multidimensional operation”

A networked approach is possible under existing administrative and budgetary arrangements, and builds on past precedents. These include the responsibility of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the implementation of the institution-building pillar of the original mandate of the UN Mission in Kosovo as well as the engagement of members of the UN country team as implementing partners for programmatic activities in various peace operations mandates. The relationship between a mission and non-mission implementing partners would be set out through a memorandum of understanding or other agreement, and could include access to funding from mission budgets given that the activities would be in support of mandated tasks.6

Such an approach avoids templated mindsets and facilitates tailored responses by being able to take into account the requirements of each context and build on the expertise and relationships that are already in place. Too often, the Secretariat and Member States forget that history doesn’t begin when a crisis appears on the Security Council (or General Assembly) agenda, and that the UN country team is already present before a mission is deployed and will still be there after the departure of a mission. It also helps mitigate the persistent challenges with overlap and duplication between multidimensional missions and the members of UN country teams, therefore helping to enhance programmatic coherence at the country level. And it would help facilitate programmatic continuity during UN transitions.

Final thoughts

In contrast with the “building blocks” approach, which treats clusters of mandated activities as the modules from which a mission is to be constructed, the “networked” school of thought takes a broader view and views all of the potential actors that can contribute to the implementation of a mandate—whether a UN mission, the members of the UN country team, and other partners, including regional organizations—as the modules that can be combined in a tailored manner to respond to the requirements of a particular context.

Although the Future of Peacekeeping report can be credited with popularizing the idea of modular approaches, its way of thinking about such approaches represents less of a change in how missions function than a way to organize mandated activities. In contrast, the “networked” approach called for in A New Agenda for Peace and the workstream 3 report provides a way of thinking beyond missions to more systematically draw upon other existing sources of capacity and expertise in support of mandate implementation. It addresses some of the persistent challenges to coherence and continuity experienced by the UN system in integrated mission contexts, and it leverages assessed contributions in mission budgets as a means of supporting integration and promoting coherence across the UN system.

And at a time when much of the discussion in the Security Council is focused on establishing UN support offices, a “networked” approach presents an alternative way of thinking about partnership with non-UN partners in a manner that helps ensure that multilateral efforts support of a coherent political strategy, one that circumvents many of the conceptual and practical limitations of the 2719 framework for supporting African Union peace support operations.

Blue Helmets, Red Tape

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?