The protection of civilians mandate in UN peacekeeping operations: reconciling protection concepts and practices

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (891-892) ◽  
pp. 517-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haidi Willmot ◽  
Scott Sheeran

AbstractThe ‘protection of civilians’ mandate in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations fulfils a critical role in realising broader protection objectives, which have in recent years become an important focus of international relations and international law. The concepts of the ‘protection of civilians’ constructed by the humanitarian, human rights and peacekeeping communities have evolved somewhat separately, resulting in disparate understandings of the associated normative bases, substance and responsibilities. If UN peacekeepers are to effectively provide physical protection to civilians under threat of violence, it is necessary to untangle this conceptual and normative confusion. The practical expectations of the use of force to protect civilians must be clear, and an overarching framework is needed to facilitate the spectrum of actors working in a complementary way towards the common objectives of the broader protection agenda.

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-84
Author(s):  
AL MUSTAANU

Human rights issues and Islamic world background for Mashood A. Baderin, although Islam is not a single factor in the realization of human rights in Muslim countries, but it becomes a very important factor that can be used as a means to realize the law. Islam as part of state law. The Harmonious Perspective is very helpful to use Islam as a means to realize human rights in the Muslim World in a socio-cultural and political-legal context, in order to promote and heal the common human rights. Mashood offers a narrative of the interaction between religion and international law, while it also offers an analysis of the effects that can be used to align the international field, and encourage the development of human rights. Concepts that affect every aspect of international relations and openness. This is the main purpose of the United Nations (UN). If we understand human rights as universal to protect individuals and people against violence, then the view that Islam is incompatible with human rights is due to the conversion and enhancement of human dignity in Islamic law.


Author(s):  
Kainat Kamal

The United Nations (UN) peacekeeping missions are mandated to help nations torn by conflict and create conditions for sustainable peace. These peacekeeping operations hold legitimacy under international law and the ability to deploy troops to advance multidimensional domains. Peacekeeping operations are called upon to maintain peace and security, promote human rights, assist in restoring the rule of law, and help conflict-prone areas create conditions for sustainable peace ("What is Peacekeeping", n.d.). These missions are formed and mandated according to individual cases. The evolution of the global security environment and developing situations in conflictridden areas requires these missions to transform from 'traditional' to 'robust' to 'hybrid', accordingly (e.g., Ishaque, 2021). So why is it that no such model can be seen in restoring peace and protection of Palestinian civilians in one of the most protracted and deadly conflicts in history?


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Bode ◽  
John Karlsrud

Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states’ military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 17-33
Author(s):  
Bharat H. Desai ◽  
Balraj K. Sidhu

This study examines the role of international courts and tribunals (ICTs) as important agents for the peaceful settlement of international disputes through the instrumentality of law. The rapid upswing in the number of specialised international courts and tribunals (in areas such as trade, human rights, law of the sea, criminal justice and environment) can be perceived as an attempt by sovereign States to maintain the viability of ICTs in light of perplexity in international relations, growing recognition of peaceful co-existence, quest for institutionalised cooperation and emergence of some of the “common concerns of humankind”, as well as the “duty to cooperate”. The article has sought to make sense of the emergence of ICTs as the “New Environmental Sentinels” and what it portends for our common future. Do we need a specialised international environmental court?


Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James

This chapter examines the UN’s peacekeeping operations. A peacekeeping operation may be defined as a UN-authorized, UN-led force made up of civilian and/or military personnel donated by states or seconded by the Secretariat, physically present in a country or countries with a view to facilitating the maintenance of peace, generally after a conflict has ceased. Many consider that for an operation to be peacekeeping, it must take place with the consent of the host state. However, this may or may not be a legal requirement, depending on the constitutional basis of the operation. The chapter discusses the fundamental characteristics of peacekeeping; categories of peacekeeping; legal basis for peacekeeping; peacekeeping and consent; peacekeeping and the use of force; peacekeeping and impartiality; functions of peacekeeping operations; UN Transitional Administrations; and the future of UN peacekeeping.


Author(s):  
Haidi Willmot ◽  
Ralph Mamiya

This chapter focuses on the conception and evolution of the UN Security Council mandate to protect civilians during peacekeeping operations from 1960 to the present. The chapter examines the normative and legal framework of the use of force to protect civilians in UN peacekeeping operations, with reference to Security Council resolutions and other bodies of international law such as humanitarian and human rights law. It considers Security Council practice between 1960 and 1999 and its emphasis on the concept of self-defence; Security Council practice from 1999 to 2007 regarding the inception and development of the explicit ‘protection of civilians’ mandate by the Council; Security Council practice from 2007 to 2011; and prioritization of the mandate in certain peacekeeping missions, specifically UNAMID (Sudan (Darfur)), MONUC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), UNOCI (Côte d’Ivoire), and UNMISS (South Sudan). Finally, the chapter describes Security Council practice from 2011 onwards and draws conclusions on impact that the protection of civilians mandate in peacekeeping operations has had on the evolution of the legitimate use of force under the UN Charter.


2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin

The use of force has been prohibited in international relations since at least the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2 (4) of the Charter states:All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations.


Author(s):  
Scott Sheeran

This chapter focuses on the nature, scope, and legitimacy of the use of force by UN peacekeeping operations within the framework of international law. Before clarifying the legal authority of UN peacekeepers to use force, it considers the historical and conceptual foundations and development of the use of force in UN peacekeeping. It then outlines the normative framework for use of force, including the categorization and legal bases for use of force under international law, and its relation to the jus ad bellum. The chapter also discusses the ‘basic principles’ of UN peacekeeping, namely consent of the main parties to the conflict, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defence, along with the goals of protecting civilians and responding to violations of international human rights law. Finally, it analyses the operational and practical challenges that arise due to the legal problems resulting from the use of force by UN peacekeepers.


1980 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-179
Author(s):  
Nathan Feinberg

Numerous and complex problems relating to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations have arisen in the protracted Arab-Israel conflict. One of these—and certainly not the least important—is whether there exists any foundation, from a legal point of view, to the claim by the Arab States that the Charter of the United Nations and general international law entitled them to resort to armed force in order to take back the territories occupied by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967. This claim to a right to a military option has been put forward not only in slogans flaunted in fiery speeches by second-rate politicians or extreme party leaders, but by the Heads of State responsible for the formulation of their countries' foreign policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document