The Protection of Civilians (PoC) mandate has rightly
captured the central narrative of United Nations Peace Operations (UNPOs). It
is essential to acknowledge that a key to the successful implementation of the
mandate also rests on a ‘reasonable protection framework for the peacekeepers’,
who stick out their necks in alien lands. International Day of UN Peacekeepers
is observed every year on 29 May to recognise the ultimate sacrifices of
peacekeepers. The day also recognises and honours the memory of over 4,000
peacekeepers who lost their lives for the cause of peace. In the last decade,
more than ever, the UN peacekeepers have increasingly been tasked to protect
vulnerable people in some of the most fragile political and security
situations. But as the peacekeepers' casualties show, protection has a cost, as
nearly 30 per cent of fatalities due to vicious acts have come in the last
decade itself. The United Nations(UN) data shows that from the first
establishment of UNPOs in 1948, as many as 4,330 peacekeepers (1,118 due to
malicious acts) have died till 30 September 2023[1].
After 2020, the majority of the fatalities have taken place in Mali, South
Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo missions. Unfortunately, only 8 per cent of these have
been legally followed up in terms of investigation, prosecution and holding
perpetrators to account. Many consider these casualties as a consequence of
conflicts and an outcome of deploying armed peacekeepers. This has a
demoralising effect on the participating Troop/Police Contributing Countries (T/PCCs)
and the nations increasingly have questioned the sacrifices of their citizens
without the accountability of the host state.[2]
As the threat to
peacekeepers increased in the 1990s, it enhanced and initiated new normative
measures to bring the protection of peacekeepers to a central focus. Somalia
and Operations in former Yugoslavia brought the 1994 Convention on the Safety
of the UN and associated personnel with certain safeguards.[3]
The Convention was followed up with Optional Protocols, on the Safety of UN and
Associated Personnel on 08 Dec 2005[4], which expanded the legal protection to all other
UN operations and personnel. A strong and assured legal provision with a quick
yet thorough investigation, fair trial and bringing perpetrators to justice
were considered the minimum requirements.
The “Santos
Cruz Report” [5]
of 19 December 2017 attempted to explain the spike in UNPO casualties and
suggested measures to reduce these. Its principal policy conclusion was of a
“Strong posture to reduce casualties”.[6]
The
Report was criticised for lacking any scientific rigour and focussing entirely
on security, ignoring humanitarian and political activities. On the contrary,
Marina Henke, eminent International Relations scholar, through a statistical regression of the
dataset on UN fatalities found that a robust peace enforcement mandate
increases the probability of a UN troop fatality due to hostile acts by 13 per
cent per contingent/month. But even multidimensional missions increase
fatalities by 4 per cent. These results counter a call to use even ‘more
robust’ mandates in the future. Congo, Mali, Somalia, Sahel, Libya and South
Sudan provide a renewed debate on the evolution of the peacekeeping instrument
itself.[7]
Notwithstanding the criticism, the UN Plan of Action has
taken inputs from the Cruz report and has been working on the safety and
security of UN peacekeepers. The UN has taken some concrete measures in force
protection, training, accountability, and situational awareness. The linkage of the PoC mandate with the safety of
the peacekeepers, performing the protection roles, is considered critical. One
reads many reports and research papers apportioning blame on the UN
peacekeepers for not leaving their posts or fortified positions to save
civilians. But very few delve into the reasons and apprehensions of the
peacekeepers, who are sent out of their countries to keep and maintain peace.
The deployed contingents lack all the essential tools of war-fighting. An added
disadvantage is that there is impunity for the perpetrators of violence in the
host countries, which acts as a deterrence to take forceful action; especially
in a Chapter VI UNPO mission.
Taking
cognisance of the recommendations of the T/PCCs and creating a better normative
environment for the protection of peacekeepers, the UN Security Council
Resolution (SCR) 2518 (2020)[8]
and SCR 2589 (2021)[9]
are important steps with assuring provisions for the peacekeepers. The UN
Procedures provide a framework to ensure accountability and ending impunity.
Paragraph 3 of SCR 2518 (2020) called “On all Member States hosting
peacekeeping operations to promptly investigate and effectively prosecute those
responsible for attacks on UN personnel”. SCR-2589 (2021) was moved under the
presidency of the Government of India, co-sponsored by 84 member countries and
adopted unanimously by the UNSC. The resolution looked at the security threats
and targeted attacks against the UN personnel including detention and
abduction. The resolution asks the host country to investigate, arrest and
prosecute perpetrators of such acts in line with their national law, consistent
with the applicable international obligations.
The UN
peacekeepers going into harm’s way in strife-torn countries must be at least
assured that in case of any hostile act against them, they will have the
backing of the nation and the UN, who will stand behind them. They expect to
have strong legal provisions and that any such incident be thoroughly
investigated and the perpetrators be held to account. The UN missions cannot
replace the national criminal justice processes and certainly do not have the
authority to punish crimes committed against their peacekeepers. However, the
UN missions can support national authorities in doing so.[10]
While there is a justifiable debate and censure against the peacekeepers for
failing to prevent and punish the sexual misconducts of the very people in need
of protection[11];
the other part of the debate – protection of the peacekeepers from the spoilers
and hostile elements of the same population, remains relegated to either
legalise or acceptable risk of war-fighting. Ignoring either of these
undermines the UN’s credibility, effectiveness and values.
Domestic and international legal frameworks exist for
investigating and prosecuting crimes committed against the UN personnel on
field missions. However, investigation and prosecution are weakened by the lack
of rule of law and weak security institutions in the conflict and post-conflict
situations of host countries. A trial requires acceptable forensic and other
pieces of evidence and securing of the evidence. The first basis for the prosecution of
individuals responsible for crimes against the UN personnel remains the
national legal framework of the host State. This is generally reflected in the
status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements signed between the UN and
host states. The UN is increasing its focus on enhancing a state’s capacity in
the Justice delivery system, which will eventually assist in meeting the
requirements of SCR 2589 (2021).
Endnotes
[1]. UN
Peacekeeping (October 2023), Total Fatalities since 1948, accessed on
November 9, 2023 from:
https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/stats_by_year_1_91_september_2023.pdf
[2].
Agathe Sarfati, “Accountability for Crimes against Peacekeepers”, International
Peace Institute, March 2023.
[3].
Office of Legal Affairs Codification Division, “Convention on the Safety of
United
Nations and Associated Personnel”, accessed on February
24, 2023 from: https://www.un.org/law/cod/safety.htm
[4] Optional Protocol
(2005). Accessed on 22 May 2022, availabe at:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/Special/2005%20Optional%20Protocol%20to%20the%20Convention%20on%20the%20Safety%20of%20United%20Nations%20and%20Associated%20Personnel.pdf
[5]. UN
Peacekeeping, Improving Security of UN Peacekeepers, UN HQ, accessed on
December 24, 2022 from:
https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/improving_security_of_united_nations_peacekeepers_report.pdf
[6] Ibid, pg 12
[7] Marina Henke, Robust
Mandates and Malicous Acts: Examining the Dealy Link, IPI Global Observatory,
21 Feb 2018
https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/02/mandates-malicious-acts-examining-deadly-link/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20the%20baseline%2C%20a,13%25%20per%20contingent%2Fmonth.
[8] UN Security Council
Resolution; S/RES/2518 (2020) dated 30 March 2020.
[9] UN Security Council
Resolution; S/RES/2589 (2021) dated 18 August 2021.
[10].
Stéphane Jean, “Supporting National Justice and Security Institutions: The Role
of UN Peace Operations”, UN Chronicle, February 23, 2023.
[11] Kelly, A. (2016).
Global: Ending impunity for crimes committed by UN peacekeepers. Online Journal
- International Bar Association. Accessed on 28 May 2022, available at:
https://www.ibanet.org/article/CEBC5F69-A238-49BB-B85A-5E8D878FE485
Col (Dr) KK Sharma served in Army Air Defence and retired from the position of Chief Instructor, Tactical & Combat Wing, Army Air Defence College in 2005. He was a military observer in UNTAC Cambodia, a founding member of the CUNPK and he has been a head, director, regional head, HOD and Dean with various organizations from 2006 to 2022. He has authored six books, 32 research papers and presented papers in many national & international seminars and conferences.
Article uploaded on 13-11-2023
Disclaimer : The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation that he/she belongs to or of the USI of India.