Pub Date : 2017-04-28DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02103001
M. Hirst
{"title":"Thinking Regional on Peace Missions in Latin America","authors":"M. Hirst","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02103001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02103001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48015884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-04-28DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02103005
Nicholas Vialle
{"title":"Managing Expectations: How Have Tensions between the International Community and National Government Impacted the Implementation of Transitional Justice in South Sudan?","authors":"Nicholas Vialle","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02103005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02103005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45855237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-04-28DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02103004
C. Foley
{"title":"Rebuilding the Justice Sector of Afghanistan","authors":"C. Foley","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02103004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02103004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02103004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46395827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001005
S. Rimmer
This article argues that there are two barriers to operationalising the Women Peace and Security resolutions at the mission level that deserve further attention. The first barrier is that the legal architecture has flaws, and does not seem to be matched with a commensurate political commitment that shapes the high-level UN response at the level of mandate. The second barrier relates to the institutional ability to deliver a peacekeeping mission with gender equality at its heart, related to the capacity of domestic militaries. The article argues that there needs to be deeper thinking about the capabilities of modern militaries to fulfil complex peace operations which contain the imperative for gender sensitive for conflict analysis, planning, security sector reform, disarmament, DDR, and disaster response. The slow progress of gender reform of militaries is hindering credible regulatory responses in UN missions. The article concludes that this creates lingering distrust of military intervention as a tool to protect women and girls, even from conflict-related sexual violence, even in a peace-keeping context.
{"title":"Barriers to Operationalising the “Women, Peace & Security” Doctrine in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations","authors":"S. Rimmer","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001005","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that there are two barriers to operationalising the Women Peace and Security resolutions at the mission level that deserve further attention. The first barrier is that the legal architecture has flaws, and does not seem to be matched with a commensurate political commitment that shapes the high-level UN response at the level of mandate. The second barrier relates to the institutional ability to deliver a peacekeeping mission with gender equality at its heart, related to the capacity of domestic militaries. The article argues that there needs to be deeper thinking about the capabilities of modern militaries to fulfil complex peace operations which contain the imperative for gender sensitive for conflict analysis, planning, security sector reform, disarmament, DDR, and disaster response. The slow progress of gender reform of militaries is hindering credible regulatory responses in UN missions. The article concludes that this creates lingering distrust of military intervention as a tool to protect women and girls, even from conflict-related sexual violence, even in a peace-keeping context.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001003
T. Toyoda
In September 2015, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws – the Peace and Security Legislation – to enable the Japan Self-Defense Force to play an enhanced role in peace deployments overseas. The enactment of the new laws was made possible by a “new” interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. While the main objective of the introduction of the laws was aimed at strengthening the alliance with the United States, JSDF participation in peace operations was also an important consideration politically. This article suggests that the Japanese government will now need to convince the public that the new Peace and Security Legislation is compatible with Japan’s constitutionally mandated pacifism. In light of the prospect of an expanded participation of Japan in international peace operations this will be particularly important.
{"title":"UN Peacekeeping as the Most Presentable Part of Japan’s 2015 Peace and Security Legislation","authors":"T. Toyoda","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001003","url":null,"abstract":"In September 2015, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws – the Peace and Security Legislation – to enable the Japan Self-Defense Force to play an enhanced role in peace deployments overseas. The enactment of the new laws was made possible by a “new” interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. While the main objective of the introduction of the laws was aimed at strengthening the alliance with the United States, JSDF participation in peace operations was also an important consideration politically. This article suggests that the Japanese government will now need to convince the public that the new Peace and Security Legislation is compatible with Japan’s constitutionally mandated pacifism. In light of the prospect of an expanded participation of Japan in international peace operations this will be particularly important.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001001
C. Michaelsen
{"title":"Introduction: Operationalizing Human Rights in Peace Missions","authors":"C. Michaelsen","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001004
Hitoshi Nasu
Japan’s new security legislation, enacted on 30 September 2015 and came into force on 29 March 2016, has expanded the scope in which the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (SDF) personnel can use weapons while engaging in a peacekeeping mission. Among other changes, it authorises the SDF to use weapons in order to protect civilians (civilian protection mandate) or to come to the aid of geographically distant units (“come-to-the-aid” mandate). While this policy itself deserves approbation, its implementation by the SDF in peacekeeping operations under the new security legislation requires careful consideration. This article examines the legal quagmire they will encounter due to the recent jurisprudential development and associated debate regarding the regulation of the use of force in peacekeeping under international law and the circumstances where legal obligations may arise to use force in order to protect civilians. It concludes by suggesting the need for Japan to form its own legal position in relation to each of the debatable legal issues and to develop national rules of engagement for each peacekeeping operation they participate in with a view to effectively communicating its legal position in operational terms to its forces.
{"title":"The Legal Quagmire of Civilian Protection in Peacekeeping under Japan’s New Security Legislation","authors":"Hitoshi Nasu","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001004","url":null,"abstract":"Japan’s new security legislation, enacted on 30 September 2015 and came into force on 29 March 2016, has expanded the scope in which the Japanese Self-Defence Forces (SDF) personnel can use weapons while engaging in a peacekeeping mission. Among other changes, it authorises the SDF to use weapons in order to protect civilians (civilian protection mandate) or to come to the aid of geographically distant units (“come-to-the-aid” mandate). While this policy itself deserves approbation, its implementation by the SDF in peacekeeping operations under the new security legislation requires careful consideration. This article examines the legal quagmire they will encounter due to the recent jurisprudential development and associated debate regarding the regulation of the use of force in peacekeeping under international law and the circumstances where legal obligations may arise to use force in order to protect civilians. It concludes by suggesting the need for Japan to form its own legal position in relation to each of the debatable legal issues and to develop national rules of engagement for each peacekeeping operation they participate in with a view to effectively communicating its legal position in operational terms to its forces.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001008
Sophocles Kitharidis
Understanding Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) has proven to be complex and controversial. This provision stipulates that in the event of a conflict, the obligations imposed on UN Member States under the UN Charter prevail over international treaty obligations. Difficulties arise when state parties must determine whether to construe the provision as applying narrowly only to express Charter obligations, or more widely to obligations generated by Charter bodies such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Within the context of UN peacekeeping operations, such operations are mandated by the UNSC. Emphasizing on the respect of the relationship between the UNSC and the UN Charter, Article 25 serves as a specific legal basis for the UNSC’s obligations to respect the provisions of the UN Charter by developing intra vires decisions which are consistent with Charter obligations. State practice therefore presupposes that priority for UNSC resolutions over treaty obligations is provided by Article 103. This article will first analyse Article 103 and in doing so, it will examine the obligations that the UNSC can impose on states. This will include a consideration of when UNSC mandated peacekeeping operations can, by their nature, contravene international human rights treaty obligations. It will then discuss the impact on peacekeeping operations on the presumption of complying with human rights obligations, including the right to life, freedom from torture and the right to liberty and security. Finally, this article will offer a critique of the capacity of Article 103 to override human rights obligations through the UNSC interpretation of ‘all means necessary’ in peacekeeping operations.
{"title":"The Power of Article 103 of the un Charter on Treaty Obligations: Can the Security Council Authorise Non-Compliance of Human Rights Treaty Obligations in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations?","authors":"Sophocles Kitharidis","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001008","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) has proven to be complex and controversial. This provision stipulates that in the event of a conflict, the obligations imposed on UN Member States under the UN Charter prevail over international treaty obligations. Difficulties arise when state parties must determine whether to construe the provision as applying narrowly only to express Charter obligations, or more widely to obligations generated by Charter bodies such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Within the context of UN peacekeeping operations, such operations are mandated by the UNSC. Emphasizing on the respect of the relationship between the UNSC and the UN Charter, Article 25 serves as a specific legal basis for the UNSC’s obligations to respect the provisions of the UN Charter by developing intra vires decisions which are consistent with Charter obligations. State practice therefore presupposes that priority for UNSC resolutions over treaty obligations is provided by Article 103. This article will first analyse Article 103 and in doing so, it will examine the obligations that the UNSC can impose on states. This will include a consideration of when UNSC mandated peacekeeping operations can, by their nature, contravene international human rights treaty obligations. It will then discuss the impact on peacekeeping operations on the presumption of complying with human rights obligations, including the right to life, freedom from torture and the right to liberty and security. Finally, this article will offer a critique of the capacity of Article 103 to override human rights obligations through the UNSC interpretation of ‘all means necessary’ in peacekeeping operations.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64925138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001002
Jeni Whalan
In June 2015, the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) handed down more than 100 recommendations for making peace missions more effective. Following in the tradition of the Brahimi Report (2000) and An Agenda for Peace (1992), the HIPPO report is the latest attempt to grapple with the escalating, and often competing, demands made of UN peace operations. This article assesses the prospects of HIPPO’s recommendations, identifying their likely impact, and where they will likely fall short.
{"title":"Reforming UN peace operations: Will the high-level panel’s report make a difference for human rights?","authors":"Jeni Whalan","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001002","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2015, the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) handed down more than 100 recommendations for making peace missions more effective. Following in the tradition of the Brahimi Report (2000) and An Agenda for Peace (1992), the HIPPO report is the latest attempt to grapple with the escalating, and often competing, demands made of UN peace operations. This article assesses the prospects of HIPPO’s recommendations, identifying their likely impact, and where they will likely fall short.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02001006
O. Simić
Over the last two decades, United Nations (UN) peacekeepers have faced a series of sexual offence allegations, largely against women and young girls and boys. The earliest reports emerged from Cambodia in 1992 and the latest in 2016, with a large majority of cases situated in the Central African Republic. This article briefly outlines the history of sexual offence allegations that have followed almost every peacekeeping operation conducted since the early 1990s. It then outlines some measures that the UN has devised to prevent sex crimes. It is argued that the strategies deployed do not reflect the gravity of the crimes which continue to be largely portrayed as disciplinary misconduct.
{"title":"Policing the Peacekeepers: Disrupting UN Responses to 'Crises' Over Sexual Offence Allegations","authors":"O. Simić","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02001006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02001006","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last two decades, United Nations (UN) peacekeepers have faced a series of sexual offence allegations, largely against women and young girls and boys. The earliest reports emerged from Cambodia in 1992 and the latest in 2016, with a large majority of cases situated in the Central African Republic. This article briefly outlines the history of sexual offence allegations that have followed almost every peacekeeping operation conducted since the early 1990s. It then outlines some measures that the UN has devised to prevent sex crimes. It is argued that the strategies deployed do not reflect the gravity of the crimes which continue to be largely portrayed as disciplinary misconduct.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-02001006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64924557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：