The article examines the significant changes proposed by the current U.S. administration regarding United Nations peacekeeping operations, which have been foundational to the collective security system established by the UN Charter. Rather than merely adjusting technical aspects or making financial cuts, these initiatives suggest a deeper strategic restructuring of the traditional peacekeeping model, which has historically operated under the direct administration and oversight of the UN. This raises not only political questions but also legal ones, such as the implications of such changes for international law.

A key element in this restructuring is the increasing willingness to terminate or not renew existing peacekeeping missions. The case of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is particularly illustrative; despite its long-standing role in stabilizing the region, the mission has received only one final extension. This decision has been justified by the argument that UNIFIL did not sufficiently limit the influence of armed actors in southern Lebanon. Such reassessments of peacekeeping missions reflect broader questions about their effectiveness and relevance in achieving lasting peace.

Overall, the potential pivot in U.S. policy raises critical concerns about the future of international peacekeeping efforts and the role of the United Nations in global governance. As peacekeeping initiatives face scrutiny, it remains essential for member states to navigate the legal ramifications of altering longstanding operations, ensuring that such actions do not undermine the core principles of collective security.