Peacekeeping in International Law

Author(s):  
Nigel D. White

Peacekeeping is a development of the Cold War and a creation largely of the United Nations. The deployment of such forces was not envisaged by the UN Charter of 1945, but peacekeeping has proved vital in securing a minimum level of peace and security in trouble spots around the world. Although new in its day, the “traditional” type of peacekeeping force first deployed in Suez in 1956 reflected traditional, or classical, principles of international law in that it was based on the consent of the host state or states, and even though it appeared to constitute military intervention, its respect for sovereignty was reflected in the neutrality of such forces. The trinity of peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality, and nonuse of aggressive force very much reflected those fundamental principles of international law—of sovereignty, nonintervention, and nonuse of force found in Article 2 of the UN Charter. However, Article 2 (paragraph 7) and Chapter VII (Article 42) of the UN Charter both recognize that the UN Security Council (UNSC) has exceptional powers to undertake enforcement action, which has led to, on occasions, peacekeeping forces being given more coercive mandates. The dialectic between consensual peacekeeping and its more belligerent variant was established as early as the second full peacekeeping force in the Congo in 1960–1964, and it is currently back on the agenda as the United Nations struggles to implement the “protection of civilians” agenda through coercive mandates given to UN forces. Coercive mandates mean that peacekeepers are increasingly crossing the line to become war fighters, or “combatants” in the language of international humanitarian law, causing confusion as to the legal status of peacekeepers, who are traditionally not seen as legitimate targets; indeed, attacks on them remain prohibited. Even consensual post–Cold War peacekeeping has moved away considerably from the traditional buffer forces of the Cold War, evolving in the early 1990s toward complex civilian-military operations designed to build the peace as well as to keep it, and including within its structure military, police, humanitarian, and other civilian elements. A vast amount of literature exists on peacekeeping, a significant part of which is listed in the Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations article “Peacekeeping” by Erik K. Rundquist. The focus here is on the legal aspects of peacekeeping, and the overlap with the bibliography by Rundquist is kept to a minimum.

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 588-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Schrijver

Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations have frequently called upon their member States to respect the principles of good governance and international law. Increasingly, however, questions are raised concerning the behaviour of international organizations themselves and whether their own practice corresponds to what they expect from their member States. In other words: do organizations practise what they preach? Since many international organizations aim to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is reasonable to consider the extent to which these organizations respect such rights and freedoms themselves. Given the immunity of the United Nations, this paper examines some alternative legal procedures for the settlement of claims against the United Nations, taking into consideration contemporary international principles in relation to access to court, due process and reparation. It concludes with a number of recommendations.


Author(s):  
Ademola Abass

The term collective security in a general sense is given many understandings both professional and nonprofessional. The phrase is sometimes used to describe the organization of security on a “collective” basis. Often, it is used to denote the “collective organization” of security. While neither of these uses is inherently wrong, neither succinctly captures what “collective security” implies when used by international lawyers. In international law, collective security is a term connoting something more dense and intricate, and much more slippery, than the above more straightforward expressions. The notion of collective security, its premise, and objectives are deeply contested by states and scholars. It is universally acknowledged that collective security is today organized under the United Nations; however, regional organizations, which used to focus primarily on economic matters, have attained greater prominence in collective security efforts especially since the end of the Cold War. This article examines the definition of collective security, its features and objectives, the actors that have the responsibility for operating it globally and regionally, its various manifestations, its limitations and, above all, its role in future.


2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson

Since the end of the Cold War a decade ago, the United Nations has exercised authority in significant new ways to address various aspects of resolving conflicts and dealing with their consequences. These new approaches have included the use offeree to end interstate and internal violence, the resolution of boundary issues and other disputes that might prolong the conflict, the elimination of threatening weapons capabilities, the prosecution of violations of international humanitarian law, and the compensation of victims of the conflict. These actions have been taken either with the consent of the state or states involved, or pursuant to the authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, or both.


1993 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry J. Richardson

It has now been two years since the end of the United Nations Security Council’s military enforcement action against Iraq, popularly known as “Operation Desert Storm.” The glow of military success suffused the American atmosphere, and its aftermath is clearly shaping international expectations about the United Nations, its legal authority, human rights, and more general issues of power, wealth and loyalties of peoples. Also shaping expectations is the end of the Cold War, which left the United States as the sole “superpower.” How well the international community and the American polity are adjusting to the absence of the Soviet Union as a major state and convenient enemy remains open to question. International law is thus challenged to regulate an international community suddenly transformed in many ways.


1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 3-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Greenwood

The application of international humanitarian law to United Nations military operations is a subject that has attracted considerable interest almost from the inception of the United Nations. While the basic premise that United Nations forces should, at the very least, respect the ‘principles and spirit’ of international humanitarian law conventions has long commanded general acceptance, there has been considerable controversy both about the legal basis for this proposition — in particular, whether this duty of respect is something derived from general international law or the result of a specific and voluntary undertaking by the United Nations — and about the exact meaning of ‘principles and spirit’ in this context.


Born in 1945, the United Nations (UN) came to life in the Arab world. It was there that the UN dealt with early diplomatic challenges that helped shape its institutions such as peacekeeping and political mediation. It was also there that the UN found itself trapped in, and sometimes part of, confounding geopolitical tensions in key international conflicts in the Cold War and post-Cold War periods, such as hostilities between Palestine and Iraq and between Libya and Syria. Much has changed over the past seven decades, but what has not changed is the central role played by the UN. This book's claim is that the UN is a constant site of struggle in the Arab world and equally that the Arab world serves as a location for the UN to define itself against the shifting politics of its age. Looking at the UN from the standpoint of the Arab world, this volume includes chapters on the potential and the problems of a UN that is framed by both the promises of its Charter and the contradictions of its member states.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Rizal Abdul Kadir

After twenty-two years of negotiations, in Aktau on August 12, 2018, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, and Turkmenistan signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. The preamble of the Convention stipulates, among other things, that the Convention, made up of twenty-four articles, was agreed on by the five states based on principles and norms of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. The enclosed Caspian Sea is bordered by Iran, Russia, and three states that were established following dissolution of the Soviet Union, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-115
Author(s):  
Mariana Pimenta Oliveira Baccarini

Abstract This article analyses attempts to reform the United Nations Security Council from a historical-institutional perspective. It argues that the possibilities for reform have suffered from a ‘lock-in’ effect that has rendered the UN resistant to change. On the other hand, the UN decision-making process has evolved since its establishment, especially since the end of the Cold War, in response to new power aspirations, making it more representative and legitimate. The Security Council has also undergone continuous informal reform that has allowed it to adapt to new times.


1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-281
Author(s):  
Robert Siekmann

Especially as a consequence of the termination of the Cold War, the détente in the relations between East en West (Gorbachev's ‘new thinking’ in foreign policy matters) and, finally, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the number of UN peace-keeping operations substantially increased in recent years. One could even speak of a ‘proliferation’. Until 1988 the number of operations was twelve (seven peace-keeping forces: UNEF ‘I’ and ‘II’, ONUC, UNHCYP, UNSF (West New Guinea), UNDOF AND UNIFIL; and five military observer missions: UNTSO, UNMOGIP, UNOGIL, UNYOM and UNIPOM). Now, three forces and seven observer missions can be added. The forces are MINURSO (West Sahara), UNTAC (Cambodia) and UNPROFOR (Yugoslavia); the observer groups: UNGOMAP (Afghanistan/Pakistan), UNIIMOG (Iran/Iraq), UNAVEM ‘I’ and ‘II’ (Angola), ONUCA (Central America), UNIKOM (Iraq/Kuwait) and ONUSAL (El Salvador). UNTAG (Namibia), which was established in 1978, could not become operational until 1989 as a result of the new political circumstances in the world. So, a total of twenty-three operations have been undertaken, of which almost fifty percent was established in the last five years, whereas the other half was the result of decisions taken by the United Nations in the preceding forty years (UNTSO dates back to 1949). In the meantime, some ‘classic’ operations are being continued (UNTSO, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNDOF, and UNIFIL), whereas some ‘modern’ operations already have been terminated as planned (UNTAG, UNGOMAP, UNIIMOG, UNAVEM ‘I’ and ‘II’, and ONUCA). At the moment (July 1992) eleven operations are in action – the greatest number in the UN history ever.


2021 ◽  
pp. 58-62
Author(s):  
Veronika Shcherbyna ◽  
Ivanna Maryniv

Problem setting. Nowadays the problem of the provisional application of treaties can be described as actual. It is no accident that it has been the subject of the attention of the United Nations International Law Commission with the task of elaborating the most important problems of international law. Furthermore, the above-mentioned subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly recognized the need to analyze the provisional application of treaties, the need for the progressive development and codification of international law in respect of the topic dealt with in this article. Аnalysis of research and publications. Aspects of the problem of provisional application of treaties are reflected primarily in the works of in the works of I.I. Lukashuk, O.V. Kyivets, O.V. Pushniak, I.I. Maryniv, T. Leber. Target of research is to describe the legal institution of the provisional introduction of international treaties and to find reasons for its use. Article’s main body. The article is devoted to the question of the temporary use of an international treaty as a fundamental institution of international law. The study discusses the need for provisional application of treaties. Attention was paid to the works of legal academics, who had considered this issue, their works and summaries were reviewed regarding the question under consideration. The author analyzed the formulations of the article 25 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Legal aspects and shortcomings were considered. First of all, it was noted that there is no definition of the temporary application of international treaties in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and article 25 of the Convention had been criticized for being difficult to understand and lacking legal precision. In the article, the author noted that in general, the provisional use takes place before the entry into force of the treaty, when countries have not yet completed the necessary internal state procedures for its entry into force and have not internationally expressed consent to be bound. The author also stressed that the application of the treaty before it enters into force or will enter in the moment when it is implemented, the parties will address to their commitments and thus the object of the treaty would disappear. The author highlighted another legal aspect of the international legal institution under consideration is that, in order to implement the institution of provisional application of treaties, A special law and regulations may be enacted in domestic law (constitutional and legislative). What is more, the author mentioned that it is appropriate to devote attention to the work of the father of the national science on the law of international treaties I.I. Lukashuk. Conclusions. The author concluded that the institution of the provisional use of treaties is one of the key institutions in the law of treaties enabling the parties to urgently address cooperation issues. Another conclusion of the author of this article is that countries resort to this legal instrument under consideration for several reasons: urgent resolution of issues to which the relevant treaties apply; the desire of countries to adopt and immediately implement confidence-building measures; preventing time gaps in the operation of a number of international treaties, which have been successively adopted and replace each other on the same subject.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document