State Responsibility and Accountability in UN Peacekeeping: The Case of The Mothers of Srebrenica v. The Netherlands

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Tamer Morris
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Un Peacekeeping

scholarly journals For the greater good?: “Good states” turning UN peacekeeping towards counterterrorism

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Karlsrud
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Security Council ◽  
World Order ◽  
Middle Power ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Us ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Greater Good ◽  
Middle Powers

The usual suspects of middle power internationalism—small and middle powers such as Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden—have all contributed to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA). This article argues that while these and other Western countries' contributions to MINUSMA may still be characterized as investments into UN peacekeeping reform and a rule-governed world order, the liberal underpinnings of that commitment are withering. Instead, these countries seek to enhance their own status. This is done by gaining appreciation for their contributions, primarily from the US; strengthening their bids for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council; and self-interested contributions to reform UN peacekeeping by efforts to enable it to confront violent extremism and terrorism. Paradoxically, the article concludes, when moving the UN towards counterterrorism and weakening the legitimacy of the organization, Western states undermine a cornerstone of their own security.

DUAL ATTRIBUTION OF ACTS COMMITTED BY A UN PEACEKEEPING FORCE: AN EMERGING NORM OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW? THE DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENTS IN NUHANOVIÇ AND MUSTAFIĆ

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 287-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Bakker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

In two cases lodged by victims (or their relatives) of the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has taken a progressive stance on the interpretation of international law on the responsibility of States and international organizations for wrongful acts. The Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions of The Hague Court of Appeal, confirming that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death and injuries of these victims, despite the fact that the Dutch troops employed to protect this enclave were part of a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force. By accepting the possibility of dual attribution of an internationally wrongful act to both the UN and the troop-sending State, it has departed from the restrictive approach adopted in current judicial practice, in particular by the European Court of Human Rights. In this note, the Supreme Court’s judgments are discussed, focusing on (i) the question of dual attribution of an international wrongful act, and (ii) the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. It concludes that, although the Supreme Court’s reliance on two sets of Draft Articles of the International Law Commission without referring to any State practice is surprising, these judgments should be welcomed as significant precedents, which may contribute to the development of a norm of customary international law. They also constitute an important step towards ensuring access to justice and reparation for the victims of gross human rights violations, such as those committed in Srebrenica.

scholarly journals The End of the Road: State Liability for Acts of UN Peacekeeping Contingents After the Dutch Supreme Court’s Judgment in Mothers of Srebrenica (2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert ◽  
Otto Spijkers
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The Road ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Dutch Supreme

Abstract This article provides an analysis of the Dutch Supreme Court judgment in the Mothers of Srebrenica case, placing it in its context, and comparing it with earlier and related decisions, in particular the judgments in the cases of Nuhanović and Mustafić. The Mothers of Srebrenica is a foundation established to represent the interests of the approximately 6000 surviving relatives of the victims of the fall of Srebrenica during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia (1995). The foundation holds the Netherlands responsible for not having done enough to protect the victims of the Srebrenica genocide. This contribution addresses the attribution of the conduct of the United Nations peacekeeping contingent to the troop-contributing State (the Netherlands), followed by the wrongfulness of the peacekeepers’ conduct and the State’s attendant liability for damages suffered by the victims. It is argued that the Dutch State’s international responsibility was only engaged because of the exceptional circumstances present in Srebrenica at the time. In the ordinary course of events, the liability of troop-contributing States is unlikely to be engaged if the Supreme Court’s review standard were to be applied.

Effective control test at the interface between the law of international responsibility and the law of international organizations: Managing concerns over the attribution of UN peacekeepers’ conduct to troop-contributing nations

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yohei Okada
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Control Test ◽  
Preventive Approach ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

AbstractOn 27 June 2017, in the Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica case, The Hague Court of Appeal applied the effective control test in determining attribution and found that the Netherlands was responsible for the failure of the Dutch battalion (Dutchbat) acting as a part of the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to protect civilians from the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. This judgment is of considerable significance because the court renounced the preventive approach to the effective control test, to which the Dutch courts had repeatedly declared their adherence, and reverted to the traditional (presumptive) approach. The preventive interpretation was originally proposed with a view to justifying much broader attribution to troop-contributing nations (TCNs). However, quite interestingly, the Court of Appeal reached the conclusion that the Dutchbat’s conduct was attributable to the Netherlands without recourse to the preventive approach. The present study argues that the legal framework for the attribution of UN peacekeepers’ conduct has developed in such a manner that the fair allocation of responsibility and the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations are in equilibrium. In that sense, the effective control test should be located at the interface between the law of international responsibility and the law of international organizations. It is illustrated that not only does the preventive interpretation fail to strike a fair balance between the institutional considerations and the need to provide remedies for victims of peacekeepers’ misconduct, but also the presumptive approach may lead to effective remedies while having due regard for the institutional considerations.

scholarly journals PUBLIC ATTRIBUTION OF CYBERATACS BY EU MEMBER STATES AND THE APPLICATION OF CYBERSANCTIONS BY THE UNION TO CYBERATTACKS THREATENING THE UNION OR ITS MEMBER STATES

2021 ◽  
pp. 209-216
Author(s):  
O. O. Surilova
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the issue of public attribution of cyberattacks threatening the European Union or its Member States, and effectiveness of the adopted «cyber diplomacy toolbox» within the Framework for a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities. Since public attribution of cyberattacks is a sovereign political decision, which differs from legal attribution for the purpose of invoking state responsibility under Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, author defines the rationale behind decisions to attribute or not to attribute cyberattacks to a particular state by examples of the Netherlands and France. While the Netherlands insist on deterrent effect of public attribution, France believes in the effectiveness of attribution provided to the allege wrongdoer by diplomatic channels. In the article, the effectiveness of cybersanctions implemented at Union level against a limited range of cyberattacks threatening the Union or its Member States was also under assessment. Article concludes that imposition of targeted sanctions in conjunction with sectoral sanctions will increase sanctions` purposes to coerce, constrain, and to signal. However, nowadays only targeted sanctions against individuals and legal entities are foreseen by the EU`s decision. At the same time, this fact does not exclude the possible application of sectoral sanctions against the most serious cyberattacks against EU` or its member states` infrastructure. Finally, the article justifies the possibility of using attribution reports prepared by the private sector to include individuals in the sanctions list if the attribution of Member States is based on intelligence that they do not wish to disclose. Moreover, malicious cyberoperations affect not only states`, but also private sector`s, interests. Private IT and cybersecurity companies thus have a chance to prove their ability to produce detailed and reliable reports on attribution of cyberoperations. Author is convinced both centralized (governmental) and decentralized (private) attribution of cyberattacks is necessary for correctness of findings.

scholarly journals Gatekeepers to Decolonisation: Recentring the UN Peacekeepers on the Frontline of West Papua’s Re-colonisation, 1962–3

2021 ◽  
pp. 002200942199789
Author(s):  
Margot Tudor
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Colonial Rule ◽  
Indonesian Government ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
West Papua ◽  
Political Opinions ◽  
Archival Study ◽  
Dutch Colonial

This article examines the policies employed by United Nations (UN) peacekeeping leadership and mid-level staff to silence West Papuan anti-Indonesian activists and dismiss the population’s political opinions as immaterial to their territory’s sovereign future. The UN brokered the New York Agreement, legitimising Indonesia’s claims to the region following a decade of international discussions and military skirmishes between Indonesia and the Netherlands over the territory of West Papua. The Agreement vested the UN with sovereign control of West Papua for seven months to facilitate the transition in authority from Dutch colonial rule. Drawing on a multi-archival study of the mission, this article offers depth and balance to previous high-policy-focused scholarship on the dispute, rendering mid-level peacekeepers visible and bringing their role in shaping peacekeeping practices to light. It illuminates how the mission staff dismissed the views of West Papuan representatives in 1962–3 and contributed to the project of disenfranchisement carried out by the Indonesian government. In doing so, the mission leadership decisively participated in the re-colonisation of the population and disregarded rights violations on the ground.

scholarly journals State Responsibility and Differential Inclusion: Addressing Honor-Based Violence in the Netherlands and Germany

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-211
Author(s):  
Gökçe Yurdakul ◽  
Anna C Korteweg
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Differential Inclusion ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Gendered Violence ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Dutch Policy ◽  
Limited Support ◽  
National Membership

Abstract From 2004, the Dutch parliament developed a comprehensive response to honor-based violence, initially in consultation with immigrant and nonimmigrant political actors, while German politicians used honor-based violence to justify the restriction of immigrants from membership, portraying them as problematic subjects. More recently, the influence of immigrant actors on Dutch policy has waned, while in Germany policy continues to develop haphazardly with generally limited support for gendered violence services. Analyzing media and policy debates, we turn to the concepts of state responsibility and differential inclusion to show how actors engaged with these policies intersectionally produce national membership along gendered and racialized lines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document