<p>Workshop Summary </p><p>The Division of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford hosted a workshop on 8th July 2013 supported by Global Action to Prevent War and Armed Conflict (GAPW), and the World Federalist Movement Canada, titled "Peacekeeping and Rapid Reaction: Towards the establishment of cosmopolitan capacities for rapid deployment." The workshop had two main goals. Firstly to chart the theoretical and practical development of peacekeeping operations, incorporating cosmopolitan approaches to international conflict resolution; secondly, to analyse the role of standing, rapid reaction peacekeeping capacities (at national and international levels) as suitable tools for governments, regional organisations and the United Nations. </p><p>The workshop looked address the following questions and discussion areas:</p><p>1) To what extent has the theoretical re-envisioning of concepts of security and the role of peacekeeping operations had an impact in policy spheres? 2) To what extent has the Responsibility to Protect advanced and/or hindered developments with regards to developing rapid reaction peacekeeping structures at the United Nations? 3) What opportunities and challenges exist to there being an international rapidly deployable peacekeeping capacity under United Nations command?</p><p>The workshop incorporated research from UK-based academics, as well as practitioner experiences from UN/New York-based GAPW. Incorporating the views, opinions and experiences of the academic and policy communities is a key factor in enhancing policy dialogue on peacekeeping operations, and discussions on the evolving ‘cosmopolitanism’ in UN peacekeeping operations draw on theoretical approaches, yet rely on reflection from the policy environment. Contributors:</p><p> Melina Lito - Program Director, Women Peace & Security Program, Global Action to Prevent War, New York  Jonathan Gilmore - Senior lecturer in Politics, Human Rights and International Studies, Kingston University  Catherine Jones - East Asian Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Warwick  David Curran - Lecturer in Peacekeeping & Conflict Resolution, University of Bradford  Robert Zuber - director of Global Action to Prevent War and Armed Conflict and the Project for a UN Emergency Peace Service.</p><p>Policy Implications</p><p>On broad developments in peacekeeping </p><p> There exists a necessity for discussion into the feasibility of rapid reaction peacekeeping and peacebuilding capacities. Discussion should be both forward looking (linking into analysis of future trends in international conflict), and also take into account existing institutionalizing efforts. Included in this are attempts to compare and contrast differing regional attempts of institutionalizing rapid reaction capacities.  Gendered approaches to security should be reflected in such debates. This would look both at current capacities and challenges of integrating gender approaches to peace and security work, but also at how a future architecture of rapid reaction peacekeeping would incorporate such approaches.  Reflection on the perceived role and function of national militaries should be encouraged, particularly taking into account the role of evolving (and sometimes conflicting) international norms such as the Responsibility to Protect, and Protection of Civilians.</p><p>On the Responsibility to Protect</p><p> Although the Responsibility to Protect was agreed by consensus at the meeting of world leaders at the 2005 World Summit, dialogue is still required in order to enhance ‘buy in’ from geographically diverse member states. Such dialogue needs to take into account inequities in language access, alternative understandings of well-used concepts (such as sovereignty and intervention), and alternative interpretations of policy and its implications for states.  Consideration should be given to how third pillar intervention operations are to be carried out in practice, whether a UNEPS-style force would be a compatible fit for this task, and what policy implications this has for UN priorities regarding the development of tools and capacities in peacekeeping. </p><p>On the United Nations Emergency Peace Service Concept (UNEPS)</p><p> Continued re-evaluation of the UNEPS concept needs to be undertaken, as part of a continued process of reflexivity in the concept. Questions over size, role, function, and budget need to be investigated  Proponents of the UNEPS concept to continue to spread the geographic constituency of advocates and researchers, as well as widening participation to a broader base of constituents from a range of professions  Advocacy about a possible UNEPS-style force should be linked to wider reform efforts at the UN that seek to improve the working practices of the organization.</p>