International Military Operations in the 21st Century by Per M. Norheim-Martinsen Tore Nyhamar

Author:Per M. Norheim-Martinsen, Tore Nyhamar [Per M. Norheim-Martinsen, Tore Nyhamar]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781138819153
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2015-01-26T00:00:00+00:00

Whither the bedrock principles of UN peacekeeping operations

If future peacekeepers are expected to wield the tool of military force with better effect, the UN needs not only to rethink its relation to the use of force but also to rethink what that may mean for the bedrock principles of UN peacekeeping: consent, impartiality and the minimum use of force. They have proved essential in former eras of peacekeeping, most of all to underline the UN’s rather limited military role in international conflicts, but what is often forgotten is that these principles were developed as a pragmatic necessity during the political climate of the cold war. Today, however, due to the ways wars and conflicts unfold and the increasingly ‘deep’ interventions by the UN, they are often stretched beyond recognition. They will probably not survive in their current form if the UN moves towards more limited and robust operations.

The principle of consent implies that the UN will not deploy an operation without the explicit request of a host nation and the main parties to the conflict. This formal acceptance by the former belligerent parties, usually secured during peace negotiations, is supposed to ensure that the UN operation can perform its mandated tasks without negative interference and with a presumed willingness to support a transition towards peace and stability. Consent often fluctuates, however, and UN operations often find themselves managing consent throughout their lifespan (United Nations 2008c, p. 32). Also, it is often unclear who the main parties to the conflict are, as violent power struggles tend to spawn multiple armed groups that seek to influence a peace process or ceasefire negotiations. This can make it hard to distinguish between those groups that should be part of negotiations and thereby providing their consent and those that should be disarmed and reintegrated into civil society, by force or otherwise.

Consent also means that the use of force at the hand of UN peacekeepers must be aligned with the directions of the host nation authorities and the main parties. In practice this often means that UN forces provide various forms of training and logistical support to host nation security forces and support security sector reform efforts that aim to disarm and/or integrate former armed groups into national security forces. Sometimes, it also includes the conduct of joint or parallel operations against recalcitrant armed groups that are not part of a ceasefire deal or peace agreement. For the UN, this is often done under the pretext of protecting civilians, while for the host nation government it often has more to do with removing potential threats to its post-conflict ruling position, or settling scores from the recent conflict. What makes this extremely challenging for the UN is that many of the national security forces also are responsible for severe human rights violations.

One of the most telling examples is the national army of the DRC, the FARDC (Forces Armées de la Réspublique Démocratique du Congo), which is regularly reported to be the one of the worst perpetrators of violence against civilians in the DRC (Human Rights Watch 2009).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.