Intervention Brigades in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Challenges Posed to International Humanitarian Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Verda Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Democratic Republic Of Congo ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Rebel Groups ◽  
Peace And Conflict Studies ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Alternative Approach

In recent decades, the United Nations (UN) has directed its peacekeeping operations to be practice-driven. This has led to an alternative approach to state-military contacts, such as those provided by the United States and other nations; the UN is more inclined to consolidate and strengthen its liaisons through Intervention Brigades. The efficacy of these brigades lies in providing military assistance to UN operations and catering to logistics, training, and advice. Advocates of peace, the UN peacekeeping operations (UNPKOs) are based on consent, impartiality, and non-utilization of force (excluding times of civilian protection and self-defense). However, as Intervention Brigades gain momentum, 'robust' peacekeeping is becoming more regulated; thus, promoting 'force' against rebel groups and/or militias. When aligned with robust Intervention Brigades, which utilizes more force than lawfully permitted, UN peacekeeping (UNPK) missions question these operations' credibility, thus blurring the conceptual difference between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Conspicuously, this exploits the traditional principle of impartiality using hard power and violates the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Exemplifying through the case study of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this paper aims to discuss the abovementioned discrepancy resulting in complications for the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies (PCS). As the discipline promotes achieving peace through „soft‟ means, the paper reviews the subject under Chapter VI & VII of the UN charter and highlights the grey areas of IHL applicability in UN peacekeeping and Intervention Brigades.

UN Peacekeeping Operations: Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and Responsibility for Operations-Related Damage

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphna Shraga
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
First Time

In the five decades that followed the Korea operation, where for the first time the United Nations commander agreed, at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to abide by the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions, few UN operations lent themselves to the applicability of international humanitarian law

scholarly journals Attacks on United Nations Peacekeeping Forces: A Violation of International Humanitarian Law

1970 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-37
Author(s):  
Bolaños Tania Gicela
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Paper Briefly ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping

This paper raises the question as to whether the United Nations peacekeeping forces could be awarded a civilian status during the armed conflict in which they are deployed; which is important for the determination of prohibition of attacks against them. The paper is based on the premise that distinction between civilians and combatants is crucial under international humanitarian law. In doing so, this paper briefly analyses the nature of UN peacekeeping operations and the qualification of the UN forces’ members as civilians or combatants. It also delves into the emerging category of UN robust peacekeeping operations to ascertain whether its personnel would be treated as civilians or combatants in the context of an international armed conflict.

Perspective on the applicability and application of international humanitarian law: the UN context

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (891-892) ◽  
pp. 645-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Grenfell
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Peacekeeping Forces ◽  
The Right

The applicability of international humanitarian law (IHL) to United Nations (UN) forces has long generated discussion. When peacekeepers have become engaged in hostilities of such a nature as to trigger the application of IHL (either via acts in self-defence, or in the course of carrying out a mandate as authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations), questions have arisen as to whether they should be equally subject to the rules of IHL. Such questions arise as UN peacekeeping forces act on behalf of the international community and thus have a ‘just cause’, so to speak, to use force. Despite these questions, however, it now appears well settled that the distinction between jus ad bellum (the right to use force under public international law) and jus in bello (the law governing the conduct of hostilities) should be maintained, and that IHL applies in respect of UN peacekeeping operations whenever the conditions for its application are met. That said, questions regarding the conditions for the application of IHL, as well as its scope of application, continue to be relevant, particularly at a time when the Security Council is tasking UN operations with increasingly robust mandates.

The Application of International Humanitarian Law to Peacekeepers

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 190-222
Author(s):  
Thierry Kaiser ◽  
Carlijn Ruers
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Status

Abstract Peacekeepers deployed as part of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (minusma) are operating in an increasingly hostile environment, requiring them to use force regularly in order to defend civilians, themselves and, more generally, minusma’s mandate. Over the last few years, minusma’s mandate has been expanded to enable the Mission to address the growing threat posed by hostile armed groups, including terrorist armed groups, and to provide support to counter-terrorist forces. The frequent hostilities, coupled with the Mission’s enhanced “robust” mandate and the rising number of demands made on minusma by non-UN forces for operational and logistical support, have raised questions concerning the status and legal protection of minusma’s peacekeepers under international humanitarian law, and more broadly the adequacy of the legal framework applicable to modern UN peacekeeping operations deployed in a “no peace to keep” environment. This article argues that a clarification of the application of the legal framework is required in order to afford better protection to Mission personnel and to more accurately capture the situation on the ground.

Normative and Legal Challenges to un Peacekeeping Operations

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Howe ◽  
Boris Kondoch ◽  
Otto Spijkers
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
Normative Concepts ◽  
Legal Challenges

The application of law and norms in military operations is complex. This article provides an overview of legal and normative aspects in un peace operations. It will focus on key challenges to un peace operations. First, it will review un peacekeeping from the perspective of international law. After providing an overview of the legal framework of un peacekeeping and the application of human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law, the article turns to issues related to the accountability and immunity of un peacekeepers. The final section addresses normative concepts including the responsibility to protect, the protection of civilians, human security and their relevance in regard to un peacekeeping.

Making Peace or Preventing It? UN Peacekeeping, Terrorism, and Civil War Negotiations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaisa Hinkkainen Elliott ◽  
Sara M T Polo ◽  
Liana Eustacia Reyes
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Peace Operations ◽  
Direct Test ◽  
Monthly Data ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Rebel Groups ◽  
Un Peacekeeping

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.

scholarly journals Odpowiedzialność za naruszenie międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego przez siły pokojowe Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-69
Author(s):  
Jacek Stochel
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Traditional Understanding

Operations under the auspices of the Security Council mandate span over 70 years. Repeatedly involved in resolving armed conflicts, they have made a significant contribution to ensuring security and stability around the world. In practice, they have taken the form of operations by individual states, coalitions, other international organizations or simply as United Nations missions composed of contingents provided by Troop Contribution Countries (TCC). While operations under the auspices of the United Nations have been involved on several occasions in offensive activities under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the question of responsibility for these actions has been the subject of many legal analyses and judgments, missions organized by the United Nations are always recognized as neutral, and their activities as conciliatory and focused on monitoring the cessation of hostilities, or supervising the disengagement between the parties of the conflict, with the use of force limited to self-defence. Thus, such operations benefited from legal protection, and any action against them was considered a violation of international law. The current engagement of United Nations goes far beyond the traditional understanding of peacekeeping operations. UN missions are frequently authorized to employ all necessary means, up to and including the use of lethal force or even neutralization of the armed group. This creates a situation where in the light of International Humanitarian Law, such actions can be recognized as involvement in armed conflict. This article is intended to show the problems that the international community will soon face to in using United Nations’ missions as an instrument for resolving armed conflicts and as a tool for restoring peace and providing stability and securityin the area of operations. It presents the processes of decision-making and subordination, which in some circumstances might result in the United Nations missions being deprived of legal protection and, in addition, made liable for non-compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law.

The United Nations as a Party to Armed Conflict

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 313-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Lilly
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The United Nations

As the role of United Nations peacekeeping operations has evolved in recent decades so too has the legal interpretation of the way in which international humanitarian law (ihl) is viewed as applying to its peacekeepers. While it has been understood that the un could become a party to armed conflict, the organization has never publicly acknowledged this until the establishment of the Intervention Brigade of the of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (monusco) pursuant to Security Council resolution 2098 of March 2013. This article addresses the legal consequences of the Intervention Brigade as a party to armed conflict and the insights it provides into the legal status of un peacekeeper under ihl. In particular, it will argue that the established legal framework for un peacekeeping operations as having the protected status of civilians under ihl has proved ill-suited for the Intervention Brigade and its experience has highlighted the inconsistencies and gaps in the rules that have been developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document