Search results

Abstract
A constitution defines the values of a particular community, and establishes institutions to realize these values. In defence of the argument that the United Nations Charter is the world's constitution, I will try to show that it contains the shared values and norms of the international community, and that the UN's organs are tasked with the promotion and protection of the shared values and norms as defined in the UN Charter. The focus is on the values of human dignity and peace and security.

The United Nations has been engaged in peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the period of the country's independence. First it was the Opération des Nations Unies au Congo (onuc), then the Mission de l'Organisation des Nations Unies au Congo (monuc), and the most recent un peacekeeping force is called Mission de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation au Congo (monusco). Most recently, monusco acquired a Force Intervention Brigade (fib). In this contribution, an analysis is made of how the bedrock principles of peacekeeping – impartiality, consent, and a restricted use of force – have evolved in the Congo. To do so, the journey begins in the 1960s, and ends in early 2015. For each principle, we will look at its traditional meaning, as well as its application to onuc, monuc, and monusco with its Force Intervention Brigade.

This article compares the recent judgment of the District Court in The Hague in the case of the Mothers ofSrebrenica Association et al. v. the Netherlands ("Mothers of Srebrenica") with the judgments of the Dutch Supreme Court of last year in the cases of Mustafić and Nuhanović v. the State of the Netherlands. In both cases the Dutch courts had to address the question of attribution—can you attribute the acts of the Dutch un peacekeepers to the Netherlands? And the Dutch courts needed to assess the wrongfulness of the conduct of the Dutch peacekeepers.

AbstractThe Srebrenica genocide has come before three different courts in The Hague, the Netherlands. The International Court of Justice looked at the responsibility of the Republic of Serbia; the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia looked at the responsibility of certain individuals. No court has as yet dealt with the responsibility of the United Nations ('UN') itself. Ten relatives of victims of the genocide and a foundation called the Mothers of Srebrenica believed this to be a role for the judges of the District Court in The Hague. However, on 10 July 2008, the Dutch Court affirmed the UN's immunity and declared it had no jurisdiction to hear the action against it. This article discusses that judgment. It will look at the applicable immunity provisions, i.e. Article 105 of the UN Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, their conceptual foundation (the doctrine of functional necessity), and the role of the Dutch Court in interpreting and applying these provisions. It will also look at a possible clash between respect for the absolute immunity of the UN and other legal obligations for the Netherlands, including those under the Genocide Convention, and the European Convention on Human Rights.