{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02196293754289636, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.126050420168068, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Motivation for Peace Operations

The question of why soldiers, policemen, civil servants or members of civil society are motivated to participate in efforts for keeping, enforcing, building or making peace is as old as the peace keeping efforts of the global community, and at least conditionally connected with the phenomenon of ‘willing to fight’ in the classical military operations. The term ‘willing to fight’ should be, within the scope of peace endeavors, redefined into ‘willing to pacify, but without fighting’, because in the majority of peace operations that took place after the Second World War, the given mandates were very limited in using weapons. Participants had light armament, if any. The aim of this article is to explain the problems of a definition of the soldier’s incentives that guide him/her into peacekeeping, of what it is that helps him/her to maintain the preparedness for executing the mandate efficiently. We tried to investigate if there are some useful typologies of different types of motivation: are there differences between motivation to enter and motivation to stay in peace operations? How to elaborate a common model for explaining the motives for peace operations? Is the problem critical enough to encourage the countries involved in the peace operations to conduct a cross-national survey on driving forces of personnel motivation, deployed in the same mission, or at least in missions of the same crisis region?