A mission should not shy away from a rigorous application of the principle of impartiality for fear of misinterpretation or retaliation.
Peacekeeping operations should be careful to compromise their image of impartiality, but should not be scared of execution and enforcing action. If peacekeeping operations remain focused on their primary goals, they should not have to shy away from taking action due to fear of compromising impartiality.
Universality of consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings
Aren't these settings where peacekeeping is needed most? --> demonstrates the inefficiency of peacekeeping operations.
does not necessarily imply or guarantee that there will also be consent at the local level,
Local citizens could be hostile against the peacekeeping troops if they don't want change or are biased.
a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict
Is this because peacekeeping operations would try to settle peace in an area that doesn't want peace to be settled, thus creating conflict between local parties and peacekeeping operations?
the consent of the main parties to the conflict
Multiple nations often act only in their personal self-interest. This would prevent multiple peacekeeping missions, causing violence or conflict to grow.