The Slippery Slope of UN Peacekeeping: Offensive Peacekeeping in Congo and Beyond

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
The Way

Fed up with the decades-old violence plaguing the DRC, the UN Security Council broke new ground by granting peacekeepers an offensive mandate to pursue rebels rather than waiting to react in self-defence. This transformation in UN military operations alarmed several States, concerned over a perceived loss of sovereignty and a weakening of the principle of non-intervention. To allay these fears, Resolution 2098’s drafters incorporated a provision expressly assuring Member States that offensive peacekeeping tactics in the DRC would not generate precedent for future UN action. However, examining past UN practice and ‘slippery slope’ theory alike reveals that explicit disavowal of precedent cannot guarantee that offensive peacekeeping will not be used as a template for future UN action. In fact, the incorporation of such language may foster the generation of a slippery slope in UN peacekeeping, ultimately paving the way for increased scope of UN intervention in situations of gross human rights violations. The article concludes by proposing a framework for how actors can manipulate slopes to generate or slow precedent for future UN action.

THE LEGALITY OF THE NATO BOMBING IN LIBYA

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geir Ulfstein ◽  
Hege Føsund Christiansen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Resolution 1973 ◽  
Nato Bombing

AbstractOn 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 authorizing member states to take forceful measures to protect Libyan civilians. Clearly NATO actions to protect civilians were within the mandate. But the authors claim that operations aiming at overthrowing the Qaddafi regime were illegal use of force. The overstepping of the mandate may have a negative effect on the credibility of the responsibility to protect in future gross human rights violations.

Humanitarian Intervention

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Caplan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
General Decline ◽  
Humanitarian Crises ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Way

States – Western ones, at least – have given increased weight to human rights and humanitarian norms as matters of international concern, with the authorization of legally binding enforcement measures to tackle humanitarian crises under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These concerns were also developed outside the UN Security Council framework, following Tony Blair’s Chicago speech and the contemporaneous NATO action over Kosovo. This gave rise to international commissions and resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a period in which there appeared to be a general decline in mass atrocities. Yet R2P had little real effect – it cannot be shown to have caused the fall in mass atrocities, only to have echoed it. Thus, the promise of R2P and an age of humanitarianism failed to emerge, even if the way was paved for future development.

scholarly journals United Nations Security Council Intervention Towards Gross Human Rights Violation of The Rohingya Ethnicity

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (06) ◽  
pp. 6464-6474
Author(s):  
Nizam Safaraz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
Human Rights Violation

Abstract             Every human being has the rights to be protected from discrimination by any party, especially the act of gross human rights violations. In order to prevent this, the Security Council has a function to secure international peace and security from threats to international peace. One of the case that is becoming an international concern is the human rights violations on Rohingya by Myanmar Military. In its implementation, the UN Security Council can intervene a country known to violate human rights of its people, however the Security Council's intervention caused a controversy that questioned the validity of the intervention by Security Council. Thus, the purpose of this research is to find out whether the situation in Myanmar is valid for the UN Security Council to carry out humanitarian interventions. Accordingly, this research also analyzes legal measures by the UN Security Council in dealing with human rights violations in Myanmar. Keyword: Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention, Rohingya, UN Security Council

Uganda-Congo offensive hints at gradual re-engagement

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Political Upheaval ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Military Engagement

Subject Ugandan military engagement in eastern Congo. Significance On December 22, Ugandan forces launched an attack into eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) targeting the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) armed group. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni claimed that the ADF -- an Islamist group of Ugandan origin but currently based in eastern DRC -- once again posed a direct threat to his nation and hinted that the Ugandan army was ready to play a wider role in military operations against the group. Impacts DRC’s ongoing political upheaval will both complicate, and be complicated by, insecurity in the east. Deep divisions within the Congolese army will further complicate the region’s already fragmented security landscape. The UN Security Council may face calls to expand or revise the UN peacekeeping mission’s mandate when this comes up for renewal in March.

By All Means, Intervene! (The Security Council and the Use of Force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in Iraq (to protect the Kurds), in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti)

1997 ◽  
Vol 66 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 241-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Taking Action

AbstractIn recent years the UN Security Council has on numerous occasions handled situations involving gross human rights violations. In order to be able to take the action considered necessary the Security Council has applied the notion of ``threat to the peace'' in Article 39 of the UN Charter to situations which do not necessarily constitute such threats. This article examines the cases of use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in Iraq (to protect the Kurds), Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. Drawing upon these experiences, the author argues that a reconstruction of the notion of ``threat to the peace'' is needed. It is suggested that gross violations of human rights should be considered as threatening peace by definition and that in particularly serious situations the Security Council is justified in taking action under Chapter VII even if a threat to international peace cannot be determined.

scholarly journals The UN Security Council and EU CSDP operations: exploring EU military operations from an outside perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelia Klocker
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Mediterranean ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions ◽  
The Eu

This article examines European Union (EU) military operations from the perspective of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and UN collective security. The EU has supported UN peacekeeping missions through its own military operations within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), based on the authorisation of these operations by the UN Security Council. However, the EU’s military operation on the Mediterranean Sea, Operation Sophia, was established in 2015 without such prior UN Security Council authorisation. Although the UN Security Council authorised the operation subsequently, it was received in a less positive light than previous operations and was criticised not only for the way in which it was established, but also for its performance. The article argues that this break with prior practice does not indicate a new direction being taken by the EU as it has retreated from this approach and established a new military operation in the Mediterranean (Operation Irini), again firmly in line with a mandate issued by the UN Security Council in 2020. The assessment of EU military operations can be complex as there might be other EU agencies involved in the process such as Frontex, and their role in future operations, in particular in the field of migration, should be monitored. Yet this internal complexity does not alter their evaluation under international law. As soon as EU military operations are conducted on the territory of a third State, the EU needs to secure either a UN Security Council authorisation or State consent. Looking at this process from the perspective of the UN Security Council sheds light on the complexity of EU military operations and their position within UN collective security.

Attuazione delle risoluzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza contro il terrorismo e tutela giurisdizionale dei diritti fondamentali nell'ordinamento comunitario: la sentenza della Corte di giustizia relativa ai casi Kadi e Al Barakaat

2009 ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Pasquale Pirrone
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Security ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Community Courts

- UN Security Council antiterrorism measures pose the classic problem to reconcile two different values: security and human rights protection. Furthermore, the implementation of Security Council resolutions gives rise to a multilevel phenomenon, which involves three legal systems (UN - EC - Member State) with different degrees of human rights protection. Particularly, while EC legal order provides for a judicial protection of fundamental rights, in the UN legal system there is no similar kind of protection. So, as far as the EC is concerned, there is the need to ensure its ordinary level and instruments of human rights protection and, at the same time, to enable the Member States to comply with their obligations deriving from UN legal system. Legal solutions to the problem to reconcile the abovementioned values and needs were pointed out, at first, by the Court of First Instance. It stated that EC is bound to abide by UN Security Council resolutions and, consequently, community courts cannot review the legality of the EC regulations implementing Security Council resolutions. They only can value, albeit indirectly, the lawfulness of these resolutions with regard to international peremptory norms. This approach clearly favours the international security and the observance of UN legal system obligations. The ECJ has reversed the abovementioned approach. It has stated that EC regulations implementing UN Security Council resolutions, as all the other community acts, are subjected to the EC principles concerning human rights and to the jurisdiction of community courts. Moreover, striking a dualistic attitude, it has stated that even if it declares the EC regulation implementing a Security Council resolution to be void, that does not compromise the validity and primacy of this resolution. This approach seems to favour human rights protection rather than the value of international security and the need for the Member States to comply with their obligations deriving from UN legal system. Nevertheless, some statements and, above all, some concrete solutions show that the Court does not neglect this value and this need.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, 1992–1996

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adekeye Adebajo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
Tight Control ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peacekeeping Missions

Egyptian scholar-diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s relationship with the UN Security Council was a difficult one, resulting eventually in him earning the unenviable record of being the only Secretary-General to have been denied a second term in office. Boutros-Ghali bluntly condemned the double standards of the powerful Western members of the Council—the Permanent Three (P3) of the US, Britain, and France—in selectively authorizing UN interventions in “rich men’s wars” in Europe while ignoring Africa’s “orphan conflicts.” The Council’s powerful members ignored many of his ambitious ideas, preferring instead to retain tight control of decision-making on UN peacekeeping missions. Boutros-Ghali worked with the Security Council to establish peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Cambodia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Somalia.

Russia may entrench its influence in CAR

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mining Sites ◽  
Un Security Council

Significance Russia on June 28 rejected as “lies” similar allegations by the United States, United Kingdom and France at the UN Security Council. The exchanges come against the backdrop of rising diplomatic tensions between Russia and France in CAR. Impacts Touadera’s ongoing offensive against rebel forces threatens to deliver a fatal blow to the peace deal he struck with them in 2019. Expanding Russian control over key mining sites could be a persistent source of frictions absent sophisticated local arrangements. Human rights concerns will deter some African leaders from engaging with Russia, but not all.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document