Peacekeeping Operations And Criminal Accountability
1. Introduction to Peacekeeping Operations and Criminal Accountability
Peacekeeping Operations (PKOs) are missions by the United Nations (UN) or regional organizations to help maintain peace and security in conflict zones. Peacekeepers include military personnel, police, and civilians from contributing countries.
Criminal Accountability arises when peacekeepers commit offenses such as:
Sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA)
Corruption or bribery
Use of excessive force
Crimes under domestic or international law
Core Principle: Peacekeepers are subject to dual accountability—both to the UN/mission and their sending state, depending on the circumstances.
2. Legal Framework
United Nations Charter
Authorizes PKOs but relies on member states for discipline and criminal prosecution.
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs)
Define legal jurisdiction over peacekeepers in host countries.
International Criminal Law
Serious violations (war crimes, sexual violence, torture) may fall under International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction if domestic prosecution fails.
UN Conduct Rules
Zero-tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse.
Misconduct must be reported to Contributing Country and UN.
3. Principles of Criminal Accountability
Primary Jurisdiction Lies with Sending State: Military personnel are usually prosecuted by their home country.
Host State Jurisdiction: Can prosecute in cases of serious violations if SOFA allows.
International Tribunals: For crimes like genocide or war crimes, UN personnel may be held accountable under international law.
Command Responsibility: Superiors may be liable if they fail to prevent or punish crimes.
4. Case Laws and Incidents
Case 1: Prosecutor v. Jean Bosco Barayagwiza (ICTR, 2000)
Facts:
Barayagwiza, a Rwandan official, was involved in the 1994 genocide while interacting with peacekeeping operations.
Decision:
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) held him accountable for failing to prevent genocide and obstructing UN peacekeepers.
Principle: Peacekeeping operations personnel and their interactions with local actors must adhere to international humanitarian law; failure to prevent atrocities may lead to criminal liability.
Case 2: United Nations vs. Sri Lankan Peacekeeper (2009)
Facts:
A Sri Lankan peacekeeper deployed in a UN mission in Haiti was accused of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Decision:
UN conducted an internal investigation, and the personnel were repatriated.
The sending country prosecuted the offender under domestic law.
Principle: Sending states have primary responsibility to prosecute their nationals for criminal acts during PKOs.
Case 3: Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor (Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2012)
Facts:
Taylor supported rebel groups who attacked UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone.
Decision:
The Special Court for Sierra Leone held Taylor criminally accountable for aiding and abetting crimes against peacekeepers.
Principle: Individuals who target peacekeeping missions can be prosecuted under international law.
Case 4: UN Peacekeeper Misconduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, 2010-2015)
Facts:
Multiple peacekeepers were involved in sexual abuse and exploitation of local women and children.
Decision:
UN repatriated implicated personnel and referred them to their countries for criminal prosecution.
Some countries, like Nepal and Bangladesh, prosecuted individuals in domestic courts.
Principle: Sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers constitutes a serious crime; accountability is shared between the UN and contributing states.
Case 5: Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić (ICTY, 2016)
Facts:
Karadžić orchestrated attacks against UN peacekeepers and civilians in Bosnia.
Decision:
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted him for war crimes, including attacks on UN personnel.
Principle: Attacks against peacekeeping operations are treated as serious international crimes.
Case 6: MINUSCA Peacekeeper Abuse in Central African Republic (2017)
Facts:
UN peacekeepers from multiple countries were accused of exploiting children in Bangui.
Decision:
UN and contributing countries conducted investigations; some personnel were repatriated, fined, and imprisoned.
Principle: Peacekeeping personnel can face criminal prosecution even years after deployment.
5. Key Takeaways from Case Laws
Dual Accountability: Primary responsibility lies with the sending state, but host state or international tribunals can intervene.
Serious Crimes Trigger International Jurisdiction: Attacks on peacekeepers, sexual exploitation, and war crimes can be prosecuted internationally.
Command Responsibility: Superiors may be held liable for failure to prevent or report misconduct.
UN’s Zero-Tolerance Policy: UN can repatriate personnel and initiate internal sanctions, but prosecution is left to member states.
Criminal Accountability is Increasingly Enforced: Over the past two decades, both international and domestic prosecutions have increased for misconduct during PKOs.
6. Conclusion
Peacekeeping operations are vital for international peace, but criminal accountability is essential to maintain legitimacy.
Sending states, host nations, and international tribunals share responsibility for prosecuting crimes.
The combination of internal UN disciplinary measures and legal proceedings under domestic/international law ensures justice for victims and deterrence against misconduct.
RELATED Blog
comments