WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE GRANT OF IMMUNITIES TO UN CIVILIAN PERSONAL AND HOW, IF AT ALL, DOES IT PREVENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MISCONDUCT BY CIVILIAN PEACEKEEPERS? INTRODUCTION The grant of immunities to officials of foreign nations and international organizations is a widespread and accepted practice in international relations and not without good reason. These immunities and privileges play a crucial role in enabling such persons to carry out their duties effectively without the interference of political or coercive influences. However as the well known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Granting absolute immunities is also hence, problematic as it leaves in its wake a very wide scope for abuse. Time and again the international community has been outraged at gross violations of IHRL committed by personnel deployed to maintain peace in a manner counterintuitive to their purpose. In recent times the number of civilians employed on such missions has also increased thereby exacerbating the already existent problem of immunity. The type of immunity that should be granted to such individuals has been a matter of contention at the international level. Countries such as the US have demanded absolute immunity for such personnel akin to that of military forces and immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC as well. On the other hand scholars have argued that lack of cogent laws defining the role and immunities of such persons THE RATIONALE AND PROVISIONS REGARDING IMMUNITY The principle granting of immunities to UN officials can be traced back to traditional ideas of ‘diplomatic immunity’ for foreign representatives based on the principle of reciprocity which is indispensable to international... ... middle of paper ... ...ary legal authority to take direct punitive measures against such persons such as civilian police, it at best may dismiss them and repatriate them to their countries along with recommendations to the authorities to initiate action. In practice, however it is often observed that the home states neglect to hold such personnel accountable for their actions even in domestic courts. A famous instance of such a situation was of a Finnish It is also important to note that the traditional view of ‘Diplomatic’ immunities under international law were never intended to cover tens of thousands of ‘representatives/employees’ in a single deployment but were meant to cover persons in significant positions of authority. However the practical interpretation of such immunities has led to them being applied to several types of officials which again, leaves scope for abuse.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
... that of a ‘competing obligations dilemma.’ Faced with a wounded insurgent, who was ’98 per cent dead,’ the decision to shoot him at point blank range and ‘put him out of his misery’ caused confliction among the ethical obligations of Capt. Semrau. The obligations in conflict were integrity, loyalty and responsibility. Each of the obligations that are used to guide Canadian Forces personnel could easily have been applied to the ‘soldier’s pact.’ In Capt. Semrau’s mind he had rationalized that he was morally justified in shooting the insurgent as he ended the misery of the Taliban guerrilla and hoped someone would do the same for him if the roles were reversed. Regardless of how he interpreted his ethical obligations, his use of them contravened the overriding authority of Principle I of the ethical principles which is entitled ‘Respect the dignity of all persons.’
Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
States ratify human right treaties to enter into agreements and commit each other to respect, protect and fulfill human rights obligations. However, the adherence to human rights treaties is not ensured by the same principle of reciprocity instead to ensure compliance, collective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms were introduced.8 International organizations and treaty ...
Roskin, M., & Berry, N. (2010). IR: The new world of international relations: 2010 edition (8th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman/Pearson Education.
The focus is on the issues of police accountability in modern society, and in particular why their accountability is more important than other professions. This is not surprising considering the amount of power and discretion police officers have, and the level of trust that the public holds with these civil servants. Police officers accountability is the biggest thing in their profession which has been an issue of concern they have to be accountable to the police department who want the officer to be an effective and responsible person, to people in the community who have best expectation from an officer and being accountable to themselves for their acts. An ordinary citizen of a country cannot obtain the powers that police officer’s have.
...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.
No truer words have ever been spoken by a General to his men before battle. General Dufour not only understood the nature of war but also that of being humane. The General agreed with Henri Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that certain basic rules should be in place to protect all sides in conflict. This argument is based on the idea that certain human rights should always be protected; that even in the worst of conflicts a sliver of hope should prevail. To distribute this hope evenly on the battlefield, there must be an organization to provide this aid impartially. For an organization to be truly neutral, it is never an easy path. Said organization will continually be pulled in all directions in a conflict by the interests of all sides. An impartial organization must answer the question of how to render aid, protect basic human rights, and yet not to become part of the conflict. Perhaps the answer to that very question is this: For the Red Cross to truly maintain battlefield neutrality they must offer training, medical aid, and support to friendly combatants, enemy combatants, and people on the battlefield who are not connected to either side. Some would argue that providing aid to each side would cause the conflict to b...
The immunities and privileges played an important role in the past, but today they became much more important. Negotiations and cooperation between states takes vital role in each countries foreign policy and thereby immunities and privileges of the envoys, diplomats and other foreign representatives of sending state were granted by receiving state towards suc...
Australia in the United Security Council has shown in its commitments in enhancing the adherence of the international law to ensure there is no conflict and ensuring peace is maintained. This is evident from its continued support for the Internation...