Informal Justice and United Nations Peace Operations

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-192
Author(s):  
Bruce Oswald

This paper seeks to address how UN military members undertaking UN peacekeeping operations should engage with customary or informal justice systems that they encounter. The relevant guidance that exists suggests that, as a policy matter, informal justice systems should not be allowed to deal with matters of serious crime because of the danger they may violate basic rights, and because dealing with serious crime is a key prerogative of the state. However, there is a growing movement away from adopting a unitary, state-centric rule of law orthodoxy approach, towards viewing the rule of law from the perspective of legal pluralism. Using that perspective, and in acknowledging that military members of UN peace operations are highly likely to be confronted by informal justice systems during peace operations, this paper maps three principles that UN military members should apply when dealing with informal justice systems in the context of UN peace operations: giving due regard to applicable informal justice systems, maintaining oversight of the application of informal justice norms and practices, and avoiding corrupting informal justice systems.

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?


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-162
Author(s):  
N I Kostenko

In this paper, the author tries to analyze the main extracted from the work of the United Nations according to the rule of law in the States for the last fifteen years. The analysis shows that the rule of law and the approval of the rule of law in the States for the last fifteen years of experience - is fundamental to sustainable peace after conflict, for the effective protection of human rights. Keywords: problems of justice, the rule of law, the rule of law, peacekeeping operations, the UN standards.


Author(s):  
Kaisa Hinkkainen Elliott ◽  
Sara M T Polo ◽  
Liana Eustacia Reyes

Abstract Previous studies have highlighted that United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations are effective at reducing violence during civil wars. But can these operations also change the incentives of the warring parties and lead them to pursue non-violent alternatives? This article provides the first direct test of UN peacekeeping troops’ effectiveness at inducing non-violent engagements, specifically negotiations during civil wars. Our analysis of disaggregated monthly data on peace operations, negotiations, and violence in African conflicts (1989–2009) reveals that sizable deployments of UN military troops, by themselves, are insufficient to foster negotiations, even when they reduce battlefield violence. Instead, the probability of negotiation instances is conditional on rebel tactics. We posit, when rebels engage in terrorism, peacekeeping troops can inadvertently alter the “power to hurt” of the belligerents in favor of rebel groups and create conditions conducive to negotiations. Our results have important implications for research on the effectiveness of both peacekeeping and terrorism and for policy-making.


2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 267-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Hunt ◽  
Bryn Hughes

AbstractAlthough the 'rule of law' is now widely recognised as indispensable to effective peace operations, its delineation remains elusive. Researchers contest its substance while those most responsible for its implementation (e. g. the United Nations) promulgate only abstract notions needed to inform detailed decisions. At its worst, this means that competing reform activities undermine each other, making long term success less likely. The questions we address are about the deficiencies in how rule of law is conceived. Particular attention is paid to the little recognised assumption that the Weberian state ideal corresponds to the societies on the receiving end of international interventions. After a review of extant academic and practitioner viewpoints, we set out a postWeberian framework which expands the dominant imagination to include non-state rule of law 'providers'. We argue that the optimum sources for immediate yet sustainable rule of law solutions may often be those which bear little resemblance to the conventional state-based providers that populate mainstream conceptions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-248
Author(s):  
Shane Chalmers ◽  
Jeremy Farrall

In this article, we examine how the tension between justice and force informs the efforts of the United Nations (un) to promote the rule of law through its peace operations. We begin by showing how the un’s discourse of ‘securing peace’ has three antagonistic propositions holding it together in a combustible way. The propositions are: first, peace contains the force of war; second, law contains the force of peace; and third, justice contains the force of law. With the antagonistic arrangement of these propositions in mind, we then show how the un has developed two contrasting approaches to promoting the rule of law through its peace operations, which we describe as its ‘aspirational’ and ‘operational’ visions of the rule of law. The aspirational vision combines the need for an effective and accountable security sector with a focus on the substantive requirements of justice, thus aspiring to bring all three propositions together in the rule of law. By contrast, the un’s operational vision prioritizes security, stability and order, thus losing sight of the importance of justice. We demonstrate this divergence between the un’s aspirational and operational visions through a study of the un’s peace operations in Liberia between 1993 and 2014, with a focus on the rule of law promotion activities of the un Mission in Liberia (unmil). We argue that the un’s efforts to promote the rule of law through its peace operations risk establishing the conditions for a state of tyranny if they lose sight of the antagonistic but co-dependent relationship between justice and force. The challenge is to prioritize the requirements of force and justice at the same time. While this will not resolve their antagonistic relationship, it has the virtue of acknowledging their co-dependency as an uncomfortable yet unavoidable condition of a state based on the rule of law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1801-1813
Author(s):  
Milenko Dzeletovic ◽  
Hatidza Berisha ◽  
Nikola Vidovic

In paper, the authors point out a description of the basic characteristics of the UN Organization, the process of establishing peacekeeping operations and their legal foundation in the UN Charter on the complexity of the UN system in the decision-making process and in process of the establishment of peacekeeping operations. Considering the interpretation of the legitimacy of the establishment of peacekeeping operations through the goals set by the United Nations Charter.Through the paper the conceptual-theoretical determination of peacekeeping operations was carried out and the classification of United Nations peacekeeping operations was given. Relying on the conceptual definition of peacekeeping operations with regard to our strategic - doctrinal documents that do not recognize this term, but they see it as the contents of multinational operations.Authors see the focus of work in the philosophy of emerging and perceiving basic conceptual differences between traditional and modern peace operations.The importance of the work is reflected in the understanding of conceptual differences and changes in the nature of the conflict, which led to the revolution and evolution of UN peacekeeping operations, from traditional to contemporary peacekeeping operations.


Author(s):  
Ibrahim J. Wani

Abstract Drawing on lessons from United Nations (UN) led peacekeeping operations in Africa, this chapter discusses the background and evolution of peacekeeping engagement on issues related to human rights, refugees, and internal displacement; the array of norms and institutions that have developed to formalize the mandate in the UN peacekeeping framework; and the experiences, lessons, and challenges in its implementation. Due to escalating challenges around protecting civilians and human rights violations, the chapter argues that UN peacekeeping must move beyond rhetoric. A genuine commitment to implement the recommendations of the United Nations High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) is a necessary first step. Enhanced mechanisms to compel host states to protect human rights within their borders and more regional engagement on thwarting “spoilers” are among several key follow-on measures.


Author(s):  
Maria do Ceu Pinto Arena

There is a sober paradox involved in the use of oxymoron ‘peace operations’, as these operations, traditionallyanchored on the bedrock principles of UN peacekeeping - consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force exceptin self-defence -, are being increasingly transformed into enforcement operations. Twenty-seven years after the end of theCold War and the rebirth of the United Nations’ (UN) security role, peacekeeping operations are increasingly losing groundto an emerging pattern of more aggressive, offensive operations. They have an essentially hybrid nature, involving elementsof both peacekeeping and enforcement. Although many see them as alternative, non-reconcilable techniques, politicians andpractitioners do not see a sharp dividing line separating non-coercive and enforcement tasks, permitting an easy transitionfrom one to the other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document