Replication Data for: Troop-providers’ Ideational Commitment to UN Peacekeeping and Effectiveness

Countries contribute to UNPKOs for a variety of reasons. That diversion of interest affects how the operations' mandates are fulfilled. While some troop-providers align with the principles of UN peacekeeping, others act in favor of their private benefits. Drawing on the conflict-of-interest theory, I posit that divergent interests within peacekeeping operations reduce the commitment of troop-providers to the principles of UN peacekeeping; therefore, the functionality of UN peacekeeping missions is damaged. This article explores the effect of troop-providers' ideational commitment to UN peacekeeping on reducing the length of conflicts and civilian victimization by the combatants in all terminated and ongoing peacekeeping operations from November 1990 to December 2019. The results show that an increase in troop-providers' ideational commitment to UN peacekeeping reduces both the length of conflicts and civilian victimization. The article makes three contributions. First, it elaborates on the consequences of how peacekeeping operations are composed, bringing in the primary motivations of troop-providers. Second, it develops a new measure of troop-providers' ideational commitment to UN peacekeeping, taking into account their human rights stance in the UNGA. Third, the study suggests that troop-providers' commitment to the principles of UN peacekeeping becomes more pivotal in large deployments.