When United Nations peacekeeping forces step into conflict zones, they face a fundamental question that has challenged the international community since the Korean War: to what extent are these forces bound by International Humanitarian Law? This question isn’t merely academic. It determines how peacekeepers can use force, how they treat detainees, and ultimately, whether they can fulfill their mandates while respecting the laws of war.
Table of Contents
- The ongoing debate over IHL applicability
- The UN’s ambiguous position
- Categories of peacekeeping operations and their IHL implications
- Operations with direct combat duties
- Multifaceted missions
- Traditional peacekeeping operations
- The legal framework governing peacekeepers
- Practical challenges in applying IHL
- The role of troop-contributing countries
- Recent developments and ongoing reforms
The ongoing debate over IHL applicability
The relationship between UN peacekeeping operations and International Humanitarian Law remains a subject of ongoing discussion, particularly since the Korean conflict first raised these questions in the 1950s. The International Committee of the Red Cross has consistently emphasized that peacekeeping forces should adhere to IHL principles, a position reinforced through various memorandums and conferences over the decades.
In November 1961, the ICRC issued a memorandum titled “Application and dissemination of the Geneva Conventions” addressed to States party to the Geneva Conventions and UN Members. The memorandum highlighted the necessity for ensuring application of the Conventions by forces placed at the UN’s disposal. Since the UN itself is not party to the Conventions, the ICRC considers that each State remains individually responsible for the application of these treaties whenever it provides a contingent for a peacekeeping force.
The UN’s ambiguous position
Despite clear guidance from the ICRC, the United Nations has maintained what can only be described as an equivocal stance on its forces’ obligations under IHL. The organization advocates for adherence to the spirit and principles of IHL without fully committing to all its provisions. This ambiguity creates practical challenges for peacekeepers operating in complex environments.
A significant milestone came in 1999 when the UN Secretary-General issued a Bulletin on the Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law. The Bulletin specified that fundamental principles and rules of IHL apply to UN forces when they are actively engaged as combatants in situations of armed conflict, to the extent and duration of their engagement. However, this formulation raises as many questions as it answers, particularly regarding when peacekeepers cross the threshold from neutral observers to active combatants.
Categories of peacekeeping operations and their IHL implications
Understanding IHL applicability requires recognizing that not all peacekeeping operations are created equal. These missions can be categorized into distinct types, each presenting unique challenges for applying humanitarian law.
Operations with direct combat duties
The first category includes missions where UN forces engage in direct combat operations. The Korean conflict exemplifies this type, where UN forces operated under national command in what was effectively a combat role. Similarly, during the Gulf War, UN-authorized forces engaged in offensive military operations. In these scenarios, the applicability of IHL is relatively straightforward because peacekeepers are clearly parties to the conflict.
Multifaceted missions
The second category encompasses complex, multidimensional operations such as those in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. These missions blur traditional lines between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The UN Protection Force in former Yugoslavia was established to create conditions for peace and security, with tasks including monitoring demilitarized zones and protecting civilians. However, these forces often found themselves in situations where they needed to use force beyond traditional self-defense.
The Somali operations particularly highlighted these challenges. UNOSOM II was tasked with restoring order, disarming civilians, and building foundations for stable government-objectives that went far beyond traditional neutral peacekeeping and sometimes required robust military action. These operations demonstrated how peacekeepers can become entangled in armed conflicts while nominally maintaining a peacekeeping posture.
Traditional peacekeeping operations
The third category includes classic peacekeeping missions, particularly in the Middle East. UN peacekeeping began in 1948 with the UN Truce Supervision Organization, designed to monitor armistice agreements. These traditional operations involved lightly armed troops maintaining ceasefires and providing buffers between warring parties. The use of force was limited strictly to self-defense, making IHL applicability less pressing as peacekeepers rarely engaged as combatants.
The legal framework governing peacekeepers
Modern UN peacekeeping operates within a complex legal framework. The legal foundation includes the UN Charter, Security Council mandates, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, and various agreements between the UN and troop-contributing countries. This multifaceted framework creates both opportunities and challenges for ensuring IHL compliance.
The use of force in peacekeeping operations must comply with international laws, including applicable IHL and human rights norms. At all times, force must be consistent with principles of gradation, necessity, proportionality, legality, distinction, precaution, humanity, and accountability. However, determining which legal framework applies in specific situations remains contentious.
Practical challenges in applying IHL
Peacekeepers face numerous obstacles when attempting to apply IHL principles during their operations. The threshold at which peacekeepers become parties to a conflict can be ambiguous. They must navigate multiple legal frameworks simultaneously-national laws, UN regulations, and international humanitarian law. Resource limitations often prevent missions from having sufficient personnel and equipment to fulfill protection mandates effectively.
One fundamental tension involves maintaining core peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality, and limited use of force while fulfilling protection mandates that may require assertive action. The ICRC emphasizes that respecting the applicable legal framework is essential, as peacekeepers are increasingly called upon to use force in complex operational environments.
The role of troop-contributing countries
A critical aspect often overlooked is the responsibility of states contributing troops to peacekeeping missions. Since the UN is not a party to the Geneva Conventions, each contributing state retains individual responsibility for ensuring its forces comply with IHL. This means states should issue appropriate instructions to troops before deployment and maintain accountability mechanisms throughout the mission.
The ICRC has consistently stressed that applying and respecting IHL serves the interests of peacekeeping force members themselves. In situations where they might be caught up in armed conflict or detained by parties to a conflict, having recourse to the full system of protection and responsibilities provided by IHL treaties becomes crucial.
Recent developments and ongoing reforms
The international community continues to refine its approach to IHL applicability in peacekeeping. The ICRC provides training to UN peacekeepers during pre-deployment and on-site, drawing attention to the 1999 Secretary-General’s Bulletin. There is growing recognition that clarifying the legal framework governing force use is essential, particularly for missions with robust mandates.
Contemporary peace operations increasingly require both police and military components to use force, raising questions about when and how IHL applies. Determining whether a UN mission has become a party to armed conflict remains a critical issue, especially for missions tasked with protecting civilians through all necessary means, including offensive operations.
What do you think? Should the UN formally acknowledge when its peacekeeping forces become parties to armed conflicts and thus fully bound by IHL? How can the international community better balance the need for robust civilian protection with strict adherence to humanitarian law principles?
References
- https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jmbh.htm
- https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/un-guidelines-un-forces
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command
- https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/repertoire/peacekeeping-missions
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/UNOSOM
- https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/our-history
- https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/capstone_eng_0.pdf
- https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/28/1/1/6659066
- https://www.icrc.org/en/document/china-xiangshan-forum-icrc-and-peacekeeping-operations
- https://www.icrc.org/en/document/general-debate-comprehensive-review-whole-question-peacekeeping-operations-all-their
Leave a Reply