Unlike Peacekeeping, which requires the consent of the parties, it is usually the case in peace enforcement that one or more of the parties do NOT desire the cessation of hostilities… At the very center of the debate over the legality of peace enforcement is the idea of non-interference. In essence that it is an infringement in state sovereignty, it is a military intervention within a state’s own affairs. Some argue that the specific applications of peace enforcement (such as you read in Chapter 9 with INTERFET in East Timor) show the UN should have an expanded role in responding to intra-state conflict, even if securing consent is a major obstacle. But it should not be overlooked that INTERFET succeeded in its application of coercive threat power due in part to diplomatic and political accommodations between military commanders and included authorization for mediation disputes. There are, in fact, multiple approaches at work, in what might seem like a straightforward “peace enforcement” example. Do you believe that the criticism of peace enforcement that it breaches state sovereignty and the concept of non-interference is fair? Do you believe that the other strategies that often accompany peace enforcement, such as mediation/ accommodations as seen in the INTERFET example, offset or negate the lack of consent that is evident in the peace enforcement example? Why or why not?