Pub Date : 2020-12-18DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02303001
Y. Okada, N. White
Peacekeeping is a creation of the United Nations (UN) and it plays a pivotal role in UN endeavours to maintain international peace and security. However, peacekeeping has also generated a backlash. Despite the presence of UN peacekeepers, the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the mid-1990s could not be prevented. Not only have peacekeepers failed to protect civilians, UN peacekeeping operations have also occasionally been a source of harm to the local population. Sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers has seriously tainted the UN’s reputation and, so far, no initiatives have successfully eradicated it. The cholera outbreak in Haiti is a clear example of the negative consequences that peacekeeping may have for vulnerable communities in a country. Against this background, it has been said that UN peacekeeping operations should be carried out in a more accountable manner by providing redress to victims and taking effective measures to prevent harmful conduct by peacekeepers.1 Although no one would object to this general proposition, the ways in
{"title":"Overcoming the Hurdles to Accountability in UN Peacekeeping","authors":"Y. Okada, N. White","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303001","url":null,"abstract":"Peacekeeping is a creation of the United Nations (UN) and it plays a pivotal role in UN endeavours to maintain international peace and security. However, peacekeeping has also generated a backlash. Despite the presence of UN peacekeepers, the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the mid-1990s could not be prevented. Not only have peacekeepers failed to protect civilians, UN peacekeeping operations have also occasionally been a source of harm to the local population. Sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers has seriously tainted the UN’s reputation and, so far, no initiatives have successfully eradicated it. The cholera outbreak in Haiti is a clear example of the negative consequences that peacekeeping may have for vulnerable communities in a country. Against this background, it has been said that UN peacekeeping operations should be carried out in a more accountable manner by providing redress to victims and taking effective measures to prevent harmful conduct by peacekeepers.1 Although no one would object to this general proposition, the ways in","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44868790","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 : 2020-12-18DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02303003
Norihito Samata
This article reconsiders the generally accepted view around UN peacekeeping, and focuses on ways to enable access to judicial remedies for victims as a solution to fill the prevailing “accountability gap.” This article shows that the concept is not necessarily synonymous with access to justice. Providing access to justice for the victims can be an essential factor in holding UN peacekeeping legally accountable. However, judicial review is not everything in terms of accountability. This article also analyzes the possibilities and limitations of quasi-judicial mechanisms, namely the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions and the Human Rights Advisory Panel of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo, from the perspective of legal accountability. It shows that these mechanisms have contributed to holding the organizations concerned legally accountable.
{"title":"Reconsidering Access to Justice within the Broad Range of Accountability of International Organizations","authors":"Norihito Samata","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article reconsiders the generally accepted view around UN peacekeeping, and focuses on ways to enable access to judicial remedies for victims as a solution to fill the prevailing “accountability gap.” This article shows that the concept is not necessarily synonymous with access to justice. Providing access to justice for the victims can be an essential factor in holding UN peacekeeping legally accountable. However, judicial review is not everything in terms of accountability. This article also analyzes the possibilities and limitations of quasi-judicial mechanisms, namely the Independent Accountability Mechanisms of International Financial Institutions and the Human Rights Advisory Panel of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo, from the perspective of legal accountability. It shows that these mechanisms have contributed to holding the organizations concerned legally accountable.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48102587","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 : 2020-12-18DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02303005
N. White
It is argued in this article that due diligence, grounded on positive duties under international human rights law, is a standard against which to measure the performance of UN peacekeeping forces. Its adoption by the UN will improve accountability, but in a controlled and principled way. A requirement that the UN act diligently to prevent human rights violations would not impose over-onerous obligations. For responsibility to be incurred an organisation must have clearly failed to take measures that were within its power to take. It is argued that the UN not only should be bound by norms of due diligence but is in fact bound by positive obligations derived from customary international human rights law. The development of some due diligence-type measures by the UN to prevent sexual abuse by peacekeepers and to protect civilians within areas of peacekeeper deployment, and the adoption of an explicit due diligence policy to delineate its relationship with non-UN security actors, are positive signs. However, the article demonstrates that the UN needs to further internalise and develop its due diligence obligations if it is to limit human rights violations committed under its watch. Furthermore, it needs to create accountability mechanisms to ensure that it develops the rather limited measures taken thus far, including provision for victims to be able to hold the organisation to account for failure to protect them from human rights violations. Only by accepting its responsibility and liability to such victims will be the UN be driven to improve its due diligence when mandating, preparing, training, deploying and directing peacekeeping operations.
{"title":"In Search of Due Diligence Obligations in UN Peacekeeping Operations","authors":"N. White","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000It is argued in this article that due diligence, grounded on positive duties under international human rights law, is a standard against which to measure the performance of UN peacekeeping forces. Its adoption by the UN will improve accountability, but in a controlled and principled way. A requirement that the UN act diligently to prevent human rights violations would not impose over-onerous obligations. For responsibility to be incurred an organisation must have clearly failed to take measures that were within its power to take. It is argued that the UN not only should be bound by norms of due diligence but is in fact bound by positive obligations derived from customary international human rights law. The development of some due diligence-type measures by the UN to prevent sexual abuse by peacekeepers and to protect civilians within areas of peacekeeper deployment, and the adoption of an explicit due diligence policy to delineate its relationship with non-UN security actors, are positive signs. However, the article demonstrates that the UN needs to further internalise and develop its due diligence obligations if it is to limit human rights violations committed under its watch. Furthermore, it needs to create accountability mechanisms to ensure that it develops the rather limited measures taken thus far, including provision for victims to be able to hold the organisation to account for failure to protect them from human rights violations. Only by accepting its responsibility and liability to such victims will be the UN be driven to improve its due diligence when mandating, preparing, training, deploying and directing peacekeeping operations.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48135376","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 : 2020-12-18DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02303002
Y. Okada
The immune system is supposed to protect one’s body from harmful germs, but sometimes it may attack a healthy part of the body itself—this is called an ‘autoimmune disease’. Although the founders of the United Nations (UN) equipped it with such immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes, it seems that its jurisdictional immunity is sometimes more detrimental to its proper functioning than protective of it, especially in the context of peacekeeping. The present study aims to discover a cure for this autoimmune disease. Immunities are, in general, under attack because they serve as insurmountable hurdles to holding those who exercise public authority accountable before domestic courts. Peacekeepers may harm the local population, but the UN’s immunity leads to the denial of justice in cases of third-party claims, which put pressure on the UN. However, neither deprivation nor circumvention of the UN’s jurisdictional immunity is a safe and holistic cure for this autoimmune disease. What we need to ensure is that the immune system functions as designed.
{"title":"Deprivation or Circumvention of the UN’s Immunity","authors":"Y. Okada","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The immune system is supposed to protect one’s body from harmful germs, but sometimes it may attack a healthy part of the body itself—this is called an ‘autoimmune disease’. Although the founders of the United Nations (UN) equipped it with such immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes, it seems that its jurisdictional immunity is sometimes more detrimental to its proper functioning than protective of it, especially in the context of peacekeeping. The present study aims to discover a cure for this autoimmune disease. Immunities are, in general, under attack because they serve as insurmountable hurdles to holding those who exercise public authority accountable before domestic courts. Peacekeepers may harm the local population, but the UN’s immunity leads to the denial of justice in cases of third-party claims, which put pressure on the UN. However, neither deprivation nor circumvention of the UN’s jurisdictional immunity is a safe and holistic cure for this autoimmune disease. What we need to ensure is that the immune system functions as designed.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49037484","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 : 2020-12-18DOI: 10.1163/18754112-02303006
{"title":"Contents","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/18754112-02303006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02303006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43255034","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 : 2020-11-20DOI: 10.1163/18754112-20200008
R. Burke
Territorial disputes historically have been commonplace in the Transcaucasian region. Nagorno-Karabakh is a region legally recognised as a part of Azerbaijan, but has historically been disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was an autonomous region during Soviet times, but fell within the administrative boundaries of the then Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh has operated de facto independently since 1992, when it declared independence. Azerbaijanis from regions bordering Nagorno-Karabakh were displaced from their homes in the 1990s. This created what some refer to a security buffer, but which constitute occupied territory. Azerbaijan seeks the return of all territories. For Karabakh Armenians any dispute settlement that would leave Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan is untenable, given security threats. The conflict is coloured by history, past injustices, and ideologies around identity. Despite decades of mediation attempts by the osce and others, the territory remains fervently disputed. Border skirmishes have been frequent since the 1990s. However, since September 2020 serious escalations in hostilities and violence in region risk a broader regional conflict and drawing in Turkey, Russia and Iran. The paper provides a historical exposition of factors underpinning the dispute, which are critical to understanding its context and ultimate resolution. It examines the claim to self-determination by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh from the perspective of international law. It addresses the interplay between conflicting norms of territorial integrity and self-determination. The paper reflects on questions of statehood, and on the emerging concept of remedial secession in cases of egregious human rights violations and where internal self-determination is denied, and their possible relevance to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.
{"title":"International Law in the Buffer","authors":"R. Burke","doi":"10.1163/18754112-20200008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-20200008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Territorial disputes historically have been commonplace in the Transcaucasian region. Nagorno-Karabakh is a region legally recognised as a part of Azerbaijan, but has historically been disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan. It was an autonomous region during Soviet times, but fell within the administrative boundaries of the then Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh has operated de facto independently since 1992, when it declared independence. Azerbaijanis from regions bordering Nagorno-Karabakh were displaced from their homes in the 1990s. This created what some refer to a security buffer, but which constitute occupied territory. Azerbaijan seeks the return of all territories. For Karabakh Armenians any dispute settlement that would leave Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan is untenable, given security threats. The conflict is coloured by history, past injustices, and ideologies around identity. Despite decades of mediation attempts by the osce and others, the territory remains fervently disputed. Border skirmishes have been frequent since the 1990s. However, since September 2020 serious escalations in hostilities and violence in region risk a broader regional conflict and drawing in Turkey, Russia and Iran. The paper provides a historical exposition of factors underpinning the dispute, which are critical to understanding its context and ultimate resolution. It examines the claim to self-determination by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh from the perspective of international law. It addresses the interplay between conflicting norms of territorial integrity and self-determination. The paper reflects on questions of statehood, and on the emerging concept of remedial secession in cases of egregious human rights violations and where internal self-determination is denied, and their possible relevance to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-20200008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45914838","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 : 2020-09-25DOI: 10.1163/18754112-20200006
H. Bourgeois
In this article, I aim to explore the interpretation and implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council mandates authorising the protection of civilians (PoC) and, in particular, the meaning of an authorisation to use ‘all necessary means’ to protect civilians. Over the past two decades, the UN Security Council has repeatedly provided UN (mandated) peace operations with an explicit mandate to protect civilians. In doing so, it has typically authorised the use of ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the aforementioned objective. This PoC language has been subject to varying interpretations and implementations in practice and is therefore often considered ambiguous. The conclusion reached in this article is that PoC language is indeed vague, but that this is not necessarily problematic. It might even be unavoidable in light of the cascade structure in which the PoC mandate is placed and whereby the PoC mandate is interpreted and implemented at the various levels of authority, command, and control. What is problematic is that there is uncertainty and discussion about the limits to the use of force in the implementation of PoC mandates. After all, the formula to use ‘all necessary means’ cannot be regarded as a ‘blank cheque’ to use any amount of force. Therefore, I identify the upper limit to what UN (mandated) peace operations may lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with a mandate to use ‘all necessary means’. I also detect an emerging lower limit for what UN (mandated) peace operations must lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with such a PoC mandate.
{"title":"‘All Necessary Means’ to Protect Civilians","authors":"H. Bourgeois","doi":"10.1163/18754112-20200006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-20200006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this article, I aim to explore the interpretation and implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council mandates authorising the protection of civilians (PoC) and, in particular, the meaning of an authorisation to use ‘all necessary means’ to protect civilians. Over the past two decades, the UN Security Council has repeatedly provided UN (mandated) peace operations with an explicit mandate to protect civilians. In doing so, it has typically authorised the use of ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the aforementioned objective. This PoC language has been subject to varying interpretations and implementations in practice and is therefore often considered ambiguous. The conclusion reached in this article is that PoC language is indeed vague, but that this is not necessarily problematic. It might even be unavoidable in light of the cascade structure in which the PoC mandate is placed and whereby the PoC mandate is interpreted and implemented at the various levels of authority, command, and control. What is problematic is that there is uncertainty and discussion about the limits to the use of force in the implementation of PoC mandates. After all, the formula to use ‘all necessary means’ cannot be regarded as a ‘blank cheque’ to use any amount of force. Therefore, I identify the upper limit to what UN (mandated) peace operations may lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with a mandate to use ‘all necessary means’. I also detect an emerging lower limit for what UN (mandated) peace operations must lawfully do to protect civilians when being provided with such a PoC mandate.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-20200006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44634109","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 : 2020-09-12DOI: 10.1163/18754112-20200005
Nina J. Lahoud
Acknowledging that progress in gender mainstreaming was woefully deficient, the United Nations (UN) Department of Peacekeeping Operations organized a May 2000 Seminar in Windhoek on “Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Multidimensional Peace Support Operations”, hosted by the Namibian Government, which produced two ground-breaking outcome documents that had an enormous impact on the adoption of landmark UN Security Council resolution 1325 on “Women and peace and security” five months later. Through the lens of the author’s first-hand account, the article unpacks and scrutinizes the ways in which the Seminar’s visionary Windhoek Declaration and the more operational Namibia Plan of Action came into being and had such a critical impact on that milestone resolution, and what specific factors ignited this exceptional outcome, including the role played by the host country. Through this prism, three key factors and the infectious effect of each are described, providing insights into the evolving Seminar dynamics and the interplay of inspiring speakers, Working Group deliberations, and strategic plenary sessions. The article also highlights, however, that the promises of the Windhoek Declaration, Namibia Plan of Action, and resolution 1325 have still not been fulfilled twenty years later, even though the hopes of conflict-affected women had been re-ignited in 2015 with Security Council resolution 2242’s sweeping calls for action and a stark Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 presenting robust recommendations for action to fill the many gaps. As the 20th anniversary of resolution 1325 approaches, a rallying cry of hope is directed to all those who believe in the need for women to be fully involved as equal partners in all peace and security processes that this struggle can still be accelerated to achieve the results envisaged if top UN leadership spearheads a bold time-bound initiative to steer the course forward. But will this rallying cry be embraced?
{"title":"What Fueled the Far-Reaching Impact of the Windhoek Declaration and Namibia Plan of Action as a Milestone for Gender Mainstreaming in UN Peace Support Operations and Where Is Implementation 20 Years Later?","authors":"Nina J. Lahoud","doi":"10.1163/18754112-20200005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-20200005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Acknowledging that progress in gender mainstreaming was woefully deficient, the United Nations (UN) Department of Peacekeeping Operations organized a May 2000 Seminar in Windhoek on “Mainstreaming a Gender Perspective in Multidimensional Peace Support Operations”, hosted by the Namibian Government, which produced two ground-breaking outcome documents that had an enormous impact on the adoption of landmark UN Security Council resolution 1325 on “Women and peace and security” five months later. Through the lens of the author’s first-hand account, the article unpacks and scrutinizes the ways in which the Seminar’s visionary Windhoek Declaration and the more operational Namibia Plan of Action came into being and had such a critical impact on that milestone resolution, and what specific factors ignited this exceptional outcome, including the role played by the host country. Through this prism, three key factors and the infectious effect of each are described, providing insights into the evolving Seminar dynamics and the interplay of inspiring speakers, Working Group deliberations, and strategic plenary sessions. The article also highlights, however, that the promises of the Windhoek Declaration, Namibia Plan of Action, and resolution 1325 have still not been fulfilled twenty years later, even though the hopes of conflict-affected women had been re-ignited in 2015 with Security Council resolution 2242’s sweeping calls for action and a stark Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 presenting robust recommendations for action to fill the many gaps. As the 20th anniversary of resolution 1325 approaches, a rallying cry of hope is directed to all those who believe in the need for women to be fully involved as equal partners in all peace and security processes that this struggle can still be accelerated to achieve the results envisaged if top UN leadership spearheads a bold time-bound initiative to steer the course forward. But will this rallying cry be embraced?","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-20200005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47793863","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 : 2020-04-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-0220104008
P. Drew, Major Brent Beardsley
This article provides a first-hand account on how the rules of engagement (roe) for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (unamir) were developed and implemented. It provides insight into the difficulties that were encountered in developing the roe and getting them authorized. While the mission is often criticized for its failure to protect civilians from genocidal violence, the paper explores the factors that influenced the creation of the rules, and why, given its force structure, unamir was incapable of preventing or stopping the violence.
{"title":"Do Not Intervene: unamir’s Rules of Engagement from the Inside","authors":"P. Drew, Major Brent Beardsley","doi":"10.1163/18754112-0220104008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-0220104008","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a first-hand account on how the rules of engagement (roe) for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (unamir) were developed and implemented. It provides insight into the difficulties that were encountered in developing the roe and getting them authorized. While the mission is often criticized for its failure to protect civilians from genocidal violence, the paper explores the factors that influenced the creation of the rules, and why, given its force structure, unamir was incapable of preventing or stopping the violence.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-0220104008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42472999","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 : 2020-04-08DOI: 10.1163/18754112-0220104002
Phillip Drew, Jeremy Farrall, Robert McLaughlin, Bruce Oswald
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"Phillip Drew, Jeremy Farrall, Robert McLaughlin, Bruce Oswald","doi":"10.1163/18754112-0220104002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-0220104002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-0220104002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43196123","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：