Since 2013, the United Nations Security Council has tasked some peacekeeping forces with combat operations against armed groups in the context of non-international armed conflicts. In the framework of their mandates, peacekeepers’ main responsibilities are to protect civilians and support the local central government in regaining full control over its territory, while launching offensive military operations against armed groups that go well beyond self-defence or the defence of civilians. Due to their offensive features, these mandates are called here “super-robust mandates” in order to emphasize the increased armed force that they can employ in comparison to traditional robust mandates. These super-robust mandates raise several concerns regarding their compatibility with the principles at the basis of peacekeeping operations and their effectiveness. After briefly outlining the evolution of peacekeeping, this article explores the compatibility of super-robust mandates with the principles of peacekeeping, their characterization as forcible interventions of the Security Council in non-international armed conflicts, and their suitability to reach a just and stable post-conflict arrangement. This article relies on case studies involving the practice of missions currently deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Mali, in Central African Republic, and in South Sudan.