Start a free trial
Menu

AJP-3.24

AJP-3.24 Allied joint doctrine for the military contribution to peace support

NATO commanders and staff, primarily at the operational level, who plan and conduct peace support operations

NATO doctrine for the military contribution to peace support - conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peacebuilding - written for NATO commanders and staff, and brought into force nation by nation through STANAG 2181, not a standard industry implements.

Edition
A
Published
2024-03

What it is

AJP-3.24 is NATO's Allied Joint Publication for the military contribution to peace support: conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Edition A, Version 1 was promulgated in March 2024, superseding AJP-3.4.1, and it is written as guidance for NATO commanders and staff, primarily at the operational level, with a secondary role as a reference for other NATO and non-NATO non-military actors working alongside the Alliance. It is not written for industry: the document names no supplier, manufacturer or other commercial audience, and it is not a management-system standard a company implements. A nation comes to use it by ratifying STANAG 2181, the agreement under which "the agreement of NATO nations to use this publication is recorded"; individual nations, France and Greece among them in this edition, can still record reservations against specific paragraphs.

Peace support, and what it is not

The doctrine defines five types of peace support effort: conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. It draws a sharp line between the consent-based and the coercive ones - peacekeeping is defined as conducted "with the strategic consent of all major conflicting parties," while peace enforcement is defined as likely conducted "without the strategic consent of some, if not all, of the major conflicting parties." It also separates peace support from two effort types people commonly fold into it: humanitarian assistance, which is limited in scope and duration and undertaken at the request of a host nation or lead agency, and stabilization, described here as "normally a civilian-led process that commonly takes place during or after crisis in fragile states that have lost the capacity to govern themselves effectively." What actually separates peace support from both is impartiality: "impartially implementing a political strategy aimed at upholding the purposes and principles set out in the UN Charter is the fundamental difference separating peace support from other types of crisis response operations."

Principles a peace support force applies

Seven principles run through the doctrine: political primacy, the rule of law, consent, impartiality, legitimacy, perseverance, and the promotion of state and local ownership. Impartiality gets the most careful treatment, including a distinction the document insists on: "impartiality must not be confused with neutrality" - a peace support force (PSF) takes sides on whether the mandate is being honoured, never on which party wins. Consent is not a single condition: it varies by the type of effort and by level, since an actor's leadership may consent at the strategic level while local groups remain hostile at the tactical one. Use of force is bounded throughout, restricted "to self-defence and defence of the mandate only, such as the protection of civilians under the imminent threat of violence."

Who the force works alongside

The document builds a taxonomy of who a PSF typically interacts with: international organizations (the UN and its missions, country teams and OCHA), humanitarian organizations (the ICRC and NGOs), governmental organizations, non-NATO military forces, regional organizations, and local security actors ranging from law enforcement agencies and militia to private military and security companies (PMSCs). On PMSCs specifically, a footnote is explicit that under Military Committee Policy 0681, "Private Military Security Company (PMSC) personnel will not be employed by NATO to take a direct part in hostilities when accompanying NATO forces on operations."

Planning, and the cross-cutting topics NATO requires

Planning considerations run from building a comprehensive understanding of the operating environment through command and control, inter-agency planning, deterrence (broken into five factors - credibility, cognition, capability, competition and communication), intelligence, force protection, CBRN defence, and NATO strategic communications, which brings together information operations, psychological operations and military public affairs. A substantial part of the doctrine covers eight cross-cutting topics planners are required to integrate: protection of civilians, built around understanding the human environment, mitigating harm, facilitating access to basic needs, and contributing to a safe and secure environment; children and armed conflict, including a duty to monitor six grave violations such as recruitment of child soldiers and attacks on schools or hospitals; cultural property protection; women, peace and security; conflict-related sexual violence; sexual exploitation and abuse, approached with a "zero-tolerance approach"; combating trafficking in human beings; and building integrity, where the document draws a distinction worth keeping: "this accountability cannot be delegated, whereas responsibility for a task can be." The doctrine closes its planning material with security transitions (handing responsibility for security back to the state) and assessment, defined as "the process of estimating the capabilities and performance of organizations, individuals, materiel or systems" and tied throughout to political progress rather than treated as a standalone military metric.

Military tasks and capabilities

A long chapter catalogues the missions, tasks and capabilities a peace support force may draw on: offensive, defensive, stability and enabling activities in general; specific tasks from early warning and conflict containment through enforcement of sanctions, embargoes and no-fly zones, interposition, protection of civilians, observation and monitoring, humanitarian assistance, support to elections, disarmament-demobilisation-reintegration (DDR), the early stages of security sector reform, law enforcement, border security, and explosive ordnance and mine clearance; and maritime, land and air component capabilities alongside joint capabilities that include special operations forces, cyberspace, the space domain, the electromagnetic spectrum, joint logistic support (including operational contract support and the management of contractors), joint intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, military engineering, explosive ordnance disposal, civil-military cooperation, military police and stability policing, and medical support. One point the document is explicit about: "NATO forces do not conduct humanitarian demining tasks," though they may support others doing so through training, planning, command and control, monitoring, mapping, quality control and reporting.

How compliance and assessment work

AJP-3.24 names no certification scheme, no accrediting body and no audit regime, and nothing in it is something a company is assessed against. What the document calls "assessment" is a military planning discipline, not a compliance check: "the process of estimating the capabilities and performance of organizations, individuals, materiel or systems," used to judge whether a peace support operation as a whole is making progress against its political-strategic objectives, not to audit any single contributor's conduct against this document.

Related Allied doctrine

AJP-3.24 is "subordinate to, and refers to" AJP-01, AJP-3 and AJP-5, and it "complements, rather than duplicates" the detail those and several other AJPs already cover, including AJP-2, AJP-2.1, AJP-3.1, AJP-3.2, AJP-3.3, AJP-3.5, AJP-3.8, AJP-3.14, AJP-3.15, AJP-3.16, AJP-3.18, AJP-3.19, AJP-3.20, AJP-3.21, AJP-3.22, AJP-3.26, AJP-3.27, AJP-3.28, AJMedP-6, AJP-10, AJP-10.1, AJP-10.3, AAP-47, AJP-4.3, AJP-4 and ATP-3.18.1. The one document that binds rather than merely informs it is STANAG 2181, the ratified agreement recorded in the promulgation letter.

How we help

AJP-3.24 is operational doctrine rather than a standard a company implements or a management system a company runs. Its readers are NATO commanders and staff; the document names no supplier, contractor or manufacturer obligation of its own. Where it does touch organisations outside NATO's own command structures is in its material on operational contract support and contractors - it expects commanders to develop guidance for contractor personnel and expects contracting to be coordinated to avoid duplication and excessive competition for scarce resources. For a company operating under a contract that places its people or services inside a peace support environment, the practical work - meeting the specific conduct, reporting and coordination expectations that contract sets - is done in theatre, not in software; what ComplyTrain supports is the documentation trail around it: a controlled procedure for how personnel are briefed and identified when deployed alongside a peace support force, training records for that briefing, and a record of which contract or tasking a given deployment sits under.

ComplyTrain does not plan, conduct or assess a peace support operation, and it maps to no certification scheme here because AJP-3.24 names none. Which tasks, if any, a specific contract or tasking places on an organisation is set by that contract, not by this doctrine or by us. See what else sits alongside AJP-3.24, including STANAG 2181 and the wider AJP-3 series, in the standards explorer, and talk to us about the documentation trail behind that kind of contracted support.

Standards it references

Questions

Is AJP-3.24 mandatory?

Not directly for a company. AJP-3.24 binds a NATO nation once that nation ratifies STANAG 2181, which records "the agreement of NATO nations to use this publication," and nations can still record reservations against specific paragraphs. A supplier or contractor meets any part of it only where a specific contract or tasking requires it, not because the doctrine itself has been promulgated.

What is the difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement in AJP-3.24?

Consent. Peacekeeping is defined as conducted "with the strategic consent of all major conflicting parties," while peace enforcement is defined as likely conducted "without the strategic consent of some, if not all, of the major conflicting parties." The document treats this as the key operational distinction between the two, not merely a difference of intensity.

Does AJP-3.24 apply to civilian contractors?

The document does not address contractors as a compliance audience. It does discuss operational contract support and contractors as actors a commander plans around, and a footnote confirms that private military and security company personnel "will not be employed by NATO to take a direct part in hostilities when accompanying NATO forces on operations." Any obligation on a specific contractor comes from its contract, not from this doctrine directly.

What replaced AJP-3.4.1?

AJP-3.24 did. The Letter of Promulgation states that Edition A, Version 1 "is effective on receipt and supersedes AJP-3.4.1, Edition A, Version 1, which shall be destroyed in accordance with the local procedure for the destruction of documents."

Is there a certification for AJP-3.24?

No. The document names no certification scheme, no accrediting body and no audit regime. What it calls "assessment" is a military planning discipline used to judge a peace support operation's progress against its political-strategic objectives, not a compliance check against a company.