Financial report on the United Nations peacekeeping operations for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013

2014 ◽  
pp. 85-97
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Financial Report ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping

scholarly journals Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Bode ◽  
John Karlsrud
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping ◽  
Normative Foundations

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.

The Accidental Global Peacekeeper

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-99
Author(s):  
Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Korean War ◽  
Economic Interest ◽  
Historical Events ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping ◽  
Jawaharlal Nehru

This chapter examines India’s important contributions to U.N. peacekeeping. It discusses peacekeeping operations and their objectives, outlines the United Nations’ peacekeeping principles, and reviews the role India played in historical events such as The Korean War, United Nations Emergency Force, and United Nations Operation in Congo. The chapter argues that as India and Jawaharlal Nehru held no political or economic interest, only a strong vision for peace and a manifestation of One World, they adhered to and encouraged U.N. peacekeeping.

scholarly journals United Nations peacekeeping: Limitations and prospects

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadege Sheehan
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Free Riding ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping

While the demand for U.N. peacekeeping operations increases, the production of these operations remains problematic. The inherent characteristics of peacekeeping make it difficult to efficiently produce U.N. peace missions. Importantly, a country's participation in a U.N. peacekeeping operation is based on its national interests for that mission. The system of discretionary contributions of national armies currently used by the United Nations, as well as the structure of the U.N. peacekeeping scale of assessment, may be favorable to developing countries. However, they do not help increase contributions. Under such systems, a nation's participation in a mission depends largely on cost/benefit calculations. This article explains that instead of fighting the free-riding problem, one might seek to more deliberately pursue and implement a system whereby nations concentrate their contributing efforts to missions in which they do have national interests. To that effect, the article presents and briefly assesses relevant suggestions made by various scholars on potential structures that would best produce U.N. peacekeeping.

The Protection of Peacekeepers

1996 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 257-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh M. Kindred
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping ◽  
Hostile Environments

SummaryIn light of the increased risks nowadays faced by much greater numbers of peacekeepers in hostile environments, the author surveys the legal sources for their safety and protection. The article first describes the kinds of personnel that may be engaged in peacekeeping operations before exploring the legal rights of protection that attach to each of them. It shows that many conventions, especially those relating to immunities of United Nations personnel as well as humanitarian and human rights treaties, contain general provisions that may be interpreted to include peacekeepers, but that none are aimed directly at thdr problems and protection. None, that is, until the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel in the fall of 1994. When that Convention comes into force, it will impose affirmative duties on states to ensure the safety and security of peacekeepers and will apply criminal sanctions against individuals who attack them or their property. The article concludes that the new convention casts a wide net of protection over peacekeepers but suffers from two significant lacunae. It will not cover peacekeepers who are combatants (and the criteria for that characterization are unclear) or personnel engaged in non-United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Consensus and Authority Behind United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yashpal Tandon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping ◽  
United Nations Charter

The nineteenth (1964–1965) session of the General Assembly was virtually deadlocked over the financial crisis, a crisis which arose as a result of disagreement between the Members about how the United Nations peacekeeping operations were to be financed. Three years earlier, in 1961, the General Assembly, having been informed of the substantial arrears in the payment of assessments, mainly for the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and the United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC), adopted on December 20, a resolution asking the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion as to whether the expenditures authorized for the UNEF and ONUC operations constituted “expenses of the Organization” within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter. On December 19, 1962, the Assembly voted to accept the advisory opinion of the Court to the effect that the expenditures of these operations constituted “expenses of the Organization” within the meaning of Article 17 (2) of the Charter. However, attempts to extract the arrears from the defaulting states, the largest of which were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union) and France, on the strength of the Court's advisory opinion, largely failed; and the matter came to a head at the nineteenth session of the General Assembly when some Members, notably the United States, proposed that sanctions under Article 19 of the Charter be taken against the defaulting states. The crisis was finally averted toward the end of the nineteenth session when the United States decided not to pursue the question of sanctions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document