1. Peace Operations and Humanitarian Intervention
Chapter 8

2. http://www. ajamubaraka

3. How to define the term
There are different definitions of the term mainly because it is related to international law, political science, morality and international relations.
“Military intervention in a state, without the approval of its authorities, and with the purpose of preventing widespread suffering or death among the inhabitants"(Adam Roberts, 1993, p.426).
“Dictatorial or coercive interference in the sphere of jurisdiction of a sovereign state motivated or legitimated by humanitarian concerns“ (Tonny Brems Knudsen, 1997, p.146).
“Military intervention with the goal of protecting the lives and welfare of foreign civilians“ (Martha Finnemore, 1996, p.154).
“An act of intervention in the internal affairs of another country with a view to ending the physical suffering caused by the disintegrations or gross misuse of authority of the state, and helping create conditions in which a viable structure of civil authority can emerge“ (Bhikhu Parekh, 1998, p.147)
In a legal sense, the term "refers only to coercive action taken by states, at their initiative, and involving the use of armed force, for the purpose of preventing or putting a halt to serious and wide-scale violations of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to life, inside the territory of another state“(Wil D. Verwey, 1998, p.180).

4. A more comprehensive definition
“ coercive action by States involving the use of armed force in another State without the consent of its Government, with or without authorization from the UN Security Council, for the purpose of preventing or putting to a halt gross and massive violations of human rights or international humanitarian law”(Danish Institute of International Affairs, 1999, p.11 )

5. The early discussions of the concept of humanitarian intervention (I)
The discussions can be traced back to 16th and 17th classical writers on international law, particularly in their discussions on just wars.
Grotius( ) is a well-known name in this tradition. He was the victim of the 30 year’s war in Europe and known as the father of international law.
The philosophy behind the concept;
In his view, war was an instrument of rational, civilized men and had as its function the preservation of society. Thus war should only be undertaken “for the enforcement of rights” and “within the bounds of law and good faith”.
Due to the international anarchy and the lack of a superior authority force could be used “as a means for serving justice” but it had “to be moral in accordance with the laws of nature”.

6. The early discussions of the concept of humanitarian intervention(II)
Grotius stated that states are entitled to exercise the right "vested in human society" on behalf of oppressed individuals. The Grotian formulation allows the full-scale use of force to end human suffering.
In the Grotian view, international law places limits on the means of pursuing war and requires a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, ideas that are reflected in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and in modern humanitarian law.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, philosophers of political liberalism, such as Mill, related the concept of humanitarian intervention to the concept of human rights.

7. The early discussions of the concept of humanitarian intervention(III)
“The modern concept of humanitarian intervention is generally associated with state practice in the nineteenth century, when states started to invoke humanitarian reasons to justify their interventions”(Kardas, 2001, p.2)
After all, the humanitarian character of the intervention is a highly questionable matter.

8. The UN and the Military Intervention
Who is responsible for protecting people from gross violations of human rights?
The UN Charter enters force in 1945 and has created a powerful new organization with the ability to intervene to protect human rights.
The United Nations Security Council has a mandate to investigate and resolve situations threatening international peace. The Security Council has gradually come to recognize grave human rights abuses as threats to international security.

9. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
Contemporary international order is based on a society of states that enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over a particular piece of territory and rights to non-interference and non-intervention that are enshrined in the Charter of the United States.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids the use of force as an instrument of state policy with only two expectations- each state’s inherent right to self-defence( Article 51) and enforcement measures authorized by the UN Security Council.

10. The principles of non-intervantion and non-interference
This system is in turn prefaced on the assumption that states exist primarily to protect the security of their citizens. In other words, the security of the state is considered important, and worth protecting, because states provide security to individuals.
Moreover, the principles of non-intervantion and non-interference have helped international society dramatically reduce the number of inter-stateconflicts. This is a normative order which reduces the inter-state war dramatically.

11. Altough the norms of non-intervention and non-interference have helped reduce inter-state war, the assumption that states are always the best providers of security to individuals is highly debatable.
In the past century, threats to individual security have tended to come more from an individual’s own state than from other states.

12. Whilst states are often the main perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities, there are also cases where states are simply incapable of protecting their populations – either because the state has collapsed entirely, as in Somalia in the early 1990s, or because it lacks teh capaicty to defeat or make peace with rebel groups.
All this raises questions about the role of international society in mitigating the worst effects of armed conflict and protecting populations from genocide and mass atrocities.

13. “Actually, I’d rather be considered irrelevant than irresponsible“

14. Non-intervention as a universal norm
The development of human rights as a global issue
Humanitarian intervention, as the most assertive form of promoting human rights at a global level is clearly incompatible with norms such as non-intervention and state sovereignty.

15. The Dilemma about Humanitarian Intervention
The need for intervention is widely recognized, but there is also the issue of state sovereignty.
“At the heart of the matter lie the Charter of the United Nations and its system of collective security and the concepts of sovereignty, fundamental human rights and international humanitarian law”(Corell, 2001, p.3)

16. Peace Operations
International managment of armed conflict has a long history.
19th century; Concert of Europe managed political violence by intervining againts revolutionaries and to protect Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
; League of Nations oversaw plebiscites in contested territories and deployed peacekeepers to the Ruhr and Danzig.
During the Cold War; peace operations conducted by the UN. Initially UN concieved to be a collective security institution however Cold War politics blocked the UN’s efforts to adopt this role

17. Cold War politics forced UN to developalternative ways of contributing to international peace and security.
Peacekeeping was one of the principal means of doing this.

18. What is peacekeeping?
Peacekeeping is a tool available to the UN to assist countries in their difficult path from conflict to peace.
UN has the ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe, integrating them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional mandates.
UN Peacekeepers mandates are multidimensional in the sense that they provide security and the political and peacebuilding support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace.

19. support the organization of elections,
Peacekeeping operations are called upon not only to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate
the political process,
protect civilians,
assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants,
support the organization of elections,
protect and promote human rights,
assist in restoring the rule of law.

20. UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:
Consent of the parties;
Impartiality;
Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

21. Consent of the parties
UN peacekeeping operations requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. This provides the UN with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical.
In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to the conflict.
If the main parties are internally divided, the consent at the local level to the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation would be problematique.
Universality of consent becomes even less probable with the presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties.

22. Impartiality
It is crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main parties. United Nations peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict.
Failure to do so may undermine the peacekeeping operation’s credibility and legitimacy, and may lead to a withdrawal of consent for its presence by one or more of the parties.

23. Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate
UN peacekeeping operations are not an enforcement tool. However, they may use force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
In certain volatile situations, the Security Council has given UN peacekeeping operations “robust” mandates authorizing them to “use all necessary means” to deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in maintaining law and order.

24. Role of the Security Council
The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the United Nations Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
It is for the Security Council to determine when and where a UN Peacekeeping operation should be deployed.

25. The Security Council in New York
The Security Council in New York

26. Security Council takes many different factors into account when considering the establishment of new peacekeeping operation, including:
Whether there is a ceasefire in place and the parties have committed themselves to a peace process intended to reach a political settlement;
Whether a clear political goal exists and whether it can be reflected in the mandate;
Whether a precise mandate for a UN operation can be formulated;
Whether the safety and security of UN personnel can be reasonably ensured, including in particular whether reasonable guarantees can be obtained from the main parties or factions regarding the safety and security of UN personnel.

27. History of peacekeeping
United Nations Peacekeeping began in 1948 when the Security Council authorized the deployment of UN military observers to the Middle East.
The mission's role was to monitor the Armistice Agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours – an operation which became known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO).
Since then, 68 peacekeeping operations have been deployed by the UN, 55 of them since Over the years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel, as well as tens of thousands of UN police and other civilians from more than 120 countries have participated in UN peacekeeping operations.

28. Early Years of Peacekeeping
The first two peacekeeping operations deployed by the UN were the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). Both of these missions continue operating to this day.
The earliest armed peacekeeping operation was the First UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) deployed successfully in 1956 to address the Suez Crisis.
The UN Operation in the Congo (ONUC), launched in 1960, was the first large-scale mission having nearly 20,000 military personnel at its peak.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the UN established short-term missions in the Dominican Republic - Mission of the Representative of the Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic (DOMREP), West New Guinea (West Irian) - UN Security Force in West New Guinea( UNSF), and Yemen - UN Yemen Observation Mission (UNYOM), and started longer term deployments in Cyprus - UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the Middle East - UN Emergency Force II (UNEF II), UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
In 1988, UN peacekeepers were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

29. UN peacekeeping forces , Cyprus (UNFICYP) 1967.

30. These ad hoc missions began to be conceptualized into a coherent role for the UN.
In total, the UN conducted fourteen missions during the Cold War. All were intimately connected with decolonization. UN peace operations during the Cold War were therefore a tool for managing one of the most significant structural shifts in world politics-the globalization of the sovereign state.

31. Almost half of all the UN operations deployed during the Cold War were in the Middle East.
This supports the view that peace operations were an important part of the UN’s ‘preventive diplomacy’ role, seeking to prevent local conflicts escalating into a global imbroglio.

32. In the Middle East case, both superpowers recognized the potential for escalation but neither was prepared to wage war in order to defend their claims and allies in the region.
This created an opening for consensus in the Security Council and helps explain the strong regional bias in the deployment of peace operations towards the Middle East.
The same period saw only one UN operation(ONUC) deployed to sub-Saharan Africa and this too came in relation to a crisis that divided the superpowers.

33. Post-Cold War Context
With the end of the Cold War, the strategic context for UN Peacekeeping changed dramatically.
The UN shifted and expanded its field operations from “traditional” missions involving generally observational tasks performed by military personnel to complex “multidimensional” enterprises.
The nature of conflicts also changed over the years. UN Peacekeeping, originally developed as a means of dealing with inter-State conflict, was increasingly being applied to intra-State conflicts and civil wars.

34. As the Cold War came to an end, peace operations underwent a triple transformation
Quantitative transformation; more peacekeeping operations than before. Peacekeeping contributors were augmented by a flood of new countries(e.g. US, France, UK)
Normative transformation; the idea that peace operations should be broadened to include the promotion of humanitarian values and human rights
Qualitative transformation; marrying peacekeeping with the delivery of humanitarian aid, state-building programmes, local peacekeeping and elements of peace enforcement.
However still operating on the bases of Cold War ideas about peacekeeping, these new missions lacked the resources, doctrine and institutional capacity they needed to succeed.

35.
The Security Council authorized a total of 20 new operations between 1989 and 1994, raising the number of peacekeepers from 11,000 to 75,000.
Peacekeeping operations established in such countries as Angola - UN Angola Verification Mission I (UNAVEM I) and UN Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II), Cambodia - UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), El Salvador - UN Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL), Mozambique - UN Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ) and Namibia - UN Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG).
They were deployed to:
help implement complex peace agreements;
stabilize the security situation;
re-organize military and police;
elect new governments and build democratic institutions.

36. The mid-1990s
The reputation of UN Peacekeeping suffered in the mid-1990s because the Security Council failed to authorize sufficiently robust mandates or provide adequate resources in situations where the guns had not yet fallen silent, such as the former Yugoslavia - UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR), Rwanda - UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) and Somalia - UN Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II), where there was no peace to keep.
UN peacekeepers continued their long-term operations in the Middle East, Asia and Cyprus during this time.

37. The second half of the 1990s
The Council authorized new UN operations in:
Angola - UN Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III) and UN Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA);
Bosnia and Herzegovina - UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH);
Croatia - UN Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (UNCRO), UN Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) and UN Civilian Police Support Group (UNPSG);
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - UN Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP);
Guatemala - UN Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA);
Haiti - UN Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH)UN Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) and UN Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH).

38. Current peacekeeping operations
There are currently 15 peacekeeping operations and one special political mission – the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) – led by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

39. Peace operations seems to be an effective tool of crisis managment
Peace operations seems to be an effective tool of crisis managment. The problem however is that in many cases it is the host state itself that is perpetrating grave crimes.
In such cases, the state is unlikely to give its consent to the deployment of UN Peacekeepers and, guided by the principle of non-interference, the UN Security Council has been reluctant to authorize operations without the consent of the host state.
This brings us to the difficult question of when, if ever, states should intervene to put an endto genocide and mass atrocities without the consent of the host state and sometimes without the authorzation of the UN Security Council.

40. References(I)
Adam Roberts, 'Humanitarian War: Military Intervention and Human Rights', International Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 3, July 1993
Humanitarian Intervention: Legal and Political Aspects. Danish Institute of International Affairs, 1999
Tonny Brems Knudsen, 'Humanitarian Intervention Revisited: Post-Cold War Responses to Classical Problems', in Michael Pugh, The UN, Peace and Force, London, Frank Cass, 1997
Martha Finnemore, 'Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention', in Peter Z. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identities in World Politics, New York, Colombia University Press, 1996
Bhikhu Parekh, 'Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention', in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.), World Orders in the Making, London, Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998
Wil D. Verwey, 'Humanitarian Intervention in the 1990s and Beyond: An International Law Perspective', in Jan Nederveen Pieterse (ed.), World Orders in the Making, London, Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998

41. References(II)
Corell, Hans, “To intervene or not: The dilemma that will not go away” Keynote address by Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs The Legal Counsel of the United Nations, CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, 19 April 2001