Year: 2018
Author: Papadileris, Sophie
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 61 (2018), Iss. 1 : pp. 403–435
Abstract
The protection of peacekeepers and their classification in the categories of international humanitarian law has been a matter of controversy for years. To give peacekeepers some protection, the Safety Convention was established in 1994 and specific protection regulations were included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. Nevertheless, neither attacks on peacekeepers nor their (active) involvement in military conflicts have decreased. Therefore, a highly topical dilemma currently occupies the legal department of the United Nations. There are various tasks of peacekeeping operations that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, peacekeeping is traditionally achieved through a simple presence in which peacekeepers are not involved in combat operations and are protected as civilians. On the other hand, where peace enforcement involves military coercive means, it may be difficult not to regard the personnel as combatants. The boundaries between these types of mission are fluid. Due to increasingly robust peacekeeping mandates, the question of protection and its legal limits, with regard to possible participation in hostilities, is more acute than ever.
You do not have full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber? Sign in as an individual or via your institution
Journal Article Details
Publisher Name: Global Science Press
Language: English
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.61.1.403
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 61 (2018), Iss. 1 : pp. 403–435
Published online: 2018-01
AMS Subject Headings: Duncker & Humblot
Copyright: COPYRIGHT: © Global Science Press
Pages: 33
Keywords: Peacekeeping Operations Protection Safety Convention Article 8 ICC Statute Direct Participation in Hostilities Aggressive Mandate Self-Defence Cruz Report
Author Details
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sophie Papadileris: Protection of Peacekeepers Resorting to Armed Force – A Current Dilemma | 1 | ||
| Abstract | 1 | ||
| I. Dilemma of Peace Missions in Today's Conflicts | 1 | ||
| A. Conflicts and Peace Actions in Transition | 3 | ||
| B. Interlinking of Protection Rules with IHL | 4 | ||
| 1. General Applicability of IHL to UN Personnel | 5 | ||
| 2. Protection of Peacekeepers Through IHL – General Status Qualification | 6 | ||
| II. Protection and Legal Restrictions of the ‘Special Protection Rules’ | 9 | ||
| A. Safety Convention | 9 | ||
| 1. Enforcement Action Under Chapter VII UN Charter | 9 | ||
| 2. Combatant Status of UN Personnel: the ‘Key Restriction Element’ | 1 | ||
| a) Actual Use of Force and its Required Intensity | 1 | ||
| b) Threshold of Permissible Self-Defence | 1 | ||
| c) Loss of Protection on a Collective Basis | 1 | ||
| 3. Applicability in Non-International Armed Conflicts | 1 | ||
| 4. Achievements and Weaknesses of the Safety Convention | 1 | ||
| B. Article 8(2)(b)(iii) ICC Statute | 2 | ||
| 1. The Safety Convention’s Impact on the Scope of Application of Article 8 ICC-Statute | 2 | ||
| 2. Analysis of Jurisprudence: Determining Loss of Protection in the Event of Participation in Hostilities by ‘Continuous Evaluation of the Overall Circumstances’ | 2 | ||
| 3. Remaining Uncertainties Concerning the ‘Double as long as Clause’ | 2 | ||
| C. Achievements and Weaknesses of the ICC Statute Compared to the Safety Convention | 2 | ||
| III. The Revers Synergy Effect and the Future of the Protection of Personnel of UN Peace Operations | 3 |