Since the end of the last century, UN peacekeeping has undergone a fundamental and largely unexamined change. Peacekeeping operations, long expected to use force only in self-defence and to act impartially, are now increasingly relied upon by the Security Council as a means to maintain and restore security within a country. The operations are established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and some are empowered to use 'all necessary measures', language traditionally reserved for enforcement operations. Through a close examination of these twenty-first century peacekeeping operations - including operations in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Haiti and the Darfur region of the Sudan - the book shows that they are, for the most part, fundamentally ill-suited to the enforcement-type tasks being asked of them. The operations, which are under-funded, under-equipped and whose troops are under-trained, frequently lurch from crisis to crisis. There is scant evidence, some 10 years on, that matters are likely to improve. The book argues that bestowing enforcement-type functions on a peacekeeping operation is misconceived. Such operations are likely to be unsuccessful in their enforcement-type tasks, thereby causing serious damage to the excellent reputation of UN peacekeeping, and the UN more broadly. In addition, because such operations are more likely to be perceived as partial, their ability to carry out traditional (non-forceful) peacekeeping tasks may be impeded. Finally, the Security Council's practice of charging peacekeeping operations with enforcement functions lessens the pressure on the Council to work to establish genuine enforcement operations - ie, operations that are considerably better suited to restoring peace and security. '...Dr Sloan is able to show, in knowledgeable detail, not only what has changed over the years, but also what has brought these changes about. His analysis leads him to offer not only well-informed insights, but critical observations, too...This book is a pleasing combination of detailed scrutiny of topics already familiar (provisional measures, consent, so-called 'Chapter VI1⁄2' action, implied powers) and a rigorous questioning as to their place in – or indeed, relevance at all to – militarised peacekeeping. The reader will find much new terrain traversed, and plenty of out-of-the-box thinking.' From the foreword by Dame Rosalyn Higgins

An examination of how peacekeeping is woven into national, regional and international politics in Africa, and its consequences.

One of the most vexing issues that has faced the international community since the end of the Cold War has been the use of force by the United Nations peacekeeping forces. UN intervention in civil wars, as in Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Rwanda, has thrown into stark relief the difficulty of peacekeepers operating in situations where consent to their presence and activities is fragile or incomplete and where there is little peace to keep. Complex questions arise in these circumstances. When and how should peacekeepers use force to protect themselves, to protect their mission, or, most troublingly, to ensure compliance by recalcitrant parties with peace accords? Is a peace enforcement role for peacekeepers possible or is this simply war by another name? Is there a grey zone between peacekeeping and peace enforcement? Trevor Findlay reveals the history of the use of force by UN peacekeepers from Sinai in the 1950s to Haiti in the 1990s. He untangles the arguments about the use of force in peace operations and sets these within the broader context of military doctrine and practice. Drawing on these insights the author examines proposals for future conduct of UN operations, including the formulation of UN peacekeeping doctrine and the establishment of a UN rapid reaction force.

Private military and security companies (PMSCs) have been used in every peace operation since 1990, and reliance on them is increasing at a time when peace operations themselves are becoming ever more complex. This book provides an essential foundation for the emerging debate on the use of PMSCs in this context. It clarifies key issues such as whether their use complies with the principles of peacekeeping, outlines the implications of the status of private contractors as non-combatants under international humanitarian law, and identifies potential problems in holding states and international organizations responsible for their unlawful acts. Written as a clarion call for greater transparency, this book aims to inform the discussion to ensure that international lawyers and policy makers ask the right questions and take the necessary steps so that states and international organizations respect the law when endeavouring to keep peace in an increasingly privatized world.

This book discusses the legal responsibility of UN peacekeepers for the protection of civilians under international legal regimes, particularly international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international refugee law, and occupation law. It considers both negative and positive obligations, that is, a duty to respect or not violate a particular right directly and a duty to take positive action to secure or protect a particular right, respectively. In addition, it describes the standards and methods, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, by which actors in UN peacekeeping operations, including the UN, troop contributing countries, and individual peacekeepers, can be held accountable for third-party claims and allegations of criminal misconduct against UN peacekeepers for violations of responsibility in peacekeeping operations. The work will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers, and policy-makers working in the areas of International Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and International Relations.

This book examines military and civilian actors in international interventions and offers a new analytical framework to apply on such interventions. While it is frequently claimed that success in international interventions hinges largely on military–civilian coherence, cooperation has proven challenging to achieve in practice. This book examines why this is the case, by analysing various approaches employed by military and civilian actors and discussing the different relationships between the intervening actors and those upon whom they have intervened. The work analyses different military concepts, such as peacekeeping and counterinsurgency, and the often-troubled relationship between the humanitarian and military intervening actors. It presents a new analytical framework to examine these relationships based on identification theory, which illuminates how the interveners represent those they have been deployed to engage, as well as their own identity and role. As such the book offers an enhanced understanding of the challenges related to civil-military cooperation in international interventions, as well as a theoretical contribution to the study of interventions, more generally. This book will be of much interest to students of international interventions, military studies, peacekeeping, security studies and International Relations.

The International Responsibility of International Organisations addresses the joint responsibility of organisations for violations of international law committed during the deployment of peacekeeping operations. More specifically, it inquires if and under which circumstances - in terms of the notion of control - international organisations can be jointly responsible. The author analyses the practice of international organisations (the United Nations, NATO, the European Union, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States) on an inter-institutional level, as well as in the field in the form of five case studies. The likelihood and distribution of responsibility between international organisations engaged in peacekeeping operations is affected by the different layers of applicable primary norms (Security Council mandates, internal law of the organisations, international humanitarian and human rights law). Although external pressure may contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of holding international organisations jointly responsible, any substantial measures and mechanisms can only be implemented with the participation of states and international organisations.