Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the study of the specifics of the negotiation process in the multilateral (within the framework of the UN Security Council, the European Union) and bilateral (direct parties to the conflict and related parties, the UN and countries that supply contingents to UN peacekeeping operations) formats regarding the formation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon -II (UNIFIL-II) in 2006. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of two approaches to resolving the conflict that arose in connection with the Israeli military operation in 2006 against Hezbollah and accordingly the approach to the formation of peacekeeping forces (regarding their composition, mandate, operational command), which were represented by Israel, the United States, Britain on the one hand, and Lebanon and France on the other. It has been proven that the formation of UNIFIL-II was the result of reaching compromise in the negotiation process.

The nature of UN operational involvement in the practical management of conflict has evolved dramatically since the end of the Cold War. The post-Cold War liberation of the Security Council, the subsequent paralysis in its decision-making competence, and the apparent dilution of the concept of sovereignty as a prohibition on intervention have been principal factors in the evolving fortunes of UK peace-support operations.This evolving environment has had profound implications for the way in which the humanitarian community, the United Nations and military forces engaged under a UN flag have rea

This book explores the question of whether peacekeeping commanders can be held accountable for a failure to protect the civilian population in the mission area. This requires an assessment of whether peacekeeping commanders have an obligation to act against such serious crimes being committed under domestic and international law. The work uses the cases of the Dutch and Belgian peacekeeping commanders in Srebrenica and Kigali as examples, but it also places the analysis into the context of contemporary peacekeeping operations. It unfolds two main arguments. First, it provides a critical note to the contextual interpretation given to international law in relation to peacekeeping. It is argued that establishing a specific paradigm for peacekeeping operations with clear rules of interpretation and benchmark criteria would benefit peacekeeping and international law by making the contextual interpretation of international law redundant. Second, it is held that alternative options to the existing forms of criminal responsibility for military commanders should be considered, possibly focusing more clearly on failing to fulfil a norm of protection that is specific to peacekeeping and distinct from protective obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law.