PEACE-KEEPING

Peace operations as the internationally sanctioned deployment of military personnel or police to

a war-torn area with the stated purpose of upholding an agreement after fighting has stopped or
of limiting violence between warring parties and promoting an environment for conflict
resolution
Peace operations are a broad category of military interventions undertaken for the purposes of
humanitarian relief, conflict stabilization, ceasefire monitoring, and implementing peace
agreements in response to war or disaster.
Peace operations are the “signature activity” of the United Nations (UN).
They are the most expensive and most visible of the UN’s programs.
Since the late 1940s, peace operations have operated under legal mandates issued by the UN
Security Council. Its legitimacy and legality stem from the UN Security Council. This function
of the Security Council is so deeply entrenched that even powerful single states staging military
intervention and occupation have sought the UN’s approval.
Peace operation as recommended by UNSC and also at times of natural calamities.
Peace operation - traditional peace keeping (Ch VI of Charter) and peace enforcement mission
(Ch VII of Charter). The Security Council authorizes “traditional” peacekeeping missions under
Chapter VI for the pacific settlement of disputes, and they hew to the three general rules—
limited force, consent of the warring parties, and impartiality. Peace enforcement missions are
authorized under Chapter VII of the mandate, invoking the Security Council’s responsibility for
the maintenance of international peace and security. They are closer to conventional military
operations:  soldiers undertake coercive actions, have greater military capacity, and may not have
been authorized with the consent of all warring parties in place.
Peacekeeping and peace enforcement have generally differed in three major respects. First, the
basic purpose of a peacekeeping mission is usually to implement peace accords that have already
been agreed to by the warring parties, regional actors, and the UN Security Council. In other
words, peacekeepers are tasked with implementing existing peace agreements, not creating
peace. The purpose of peace enforcement is to end fighting by means of military force. Second,
UN peacekeeping troops hail from dozens of different countries and often spend little (if any)
time training together before deployment. Their armor is often light. They are capable of tasks
like monitoring ceasefires and escorting and retraining troops, but they generally cannot use
military force (except in self-defense). Unlike peacekeeping troops, peace enforcers must be able
to fight as coherent units. Third, , the UN is tasked with the vast majority of international
peacekeeping operations. In contrast, peace enforcement has often been the domain of single
states or small coalitions of the willing (such as the British Special Forces operation in Sierra
Leone, the US operation in Liberia, French operations in Côte D’Ivoire, and the Australian-led
International Force for East Timor). Regional organizations have also often played the role of
peace enforcer, as did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Bosnia and Kosovo;
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Mali;
and the African Union (AU) in Somalia.
Haiti cholera eg.
COUNTERTERRORISM AND TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
To battle terrorism, global concentrated efforts is required.
Cooporation between intelligence agencies and states is required with technical support.
Int. bodies for drug control and drug trafficking.
NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT
By the time the UN Charter came into force on 24 October 1945, however, the world was
confronted by the violent dawn of the nuclear era following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Unsurprisingly then, the UN’s efforts towards disarmament and non-proliferation became
focused on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in general and nuclear weapons in particular, in
addition to conventional weapons. The very first UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution in
January 1946 called for the ‘Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised
by the Discovery of Atomic Energy’. Although the resolution does not explicitly use the term
‘disarmament’ or ‘non-proliferation’, it mandated the commission to make specific proposals
‘for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major [chemical
and biological] weapons adaptable to mass destruction.
US President Dwight Eisenhower’s famous ‘Atoms for Peace’ address to the UNGA on 8
December 1953, which led to the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in Vienna in 1957, revived the prospects of establishing an international regime to tackle
non-proliferation.
Subsequently the successful conclusion of the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), the 1967
Outer Space Treaty, and the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) laid the foundations
for an international non-proliferation regime.
The UN Security Council (UNSC), which includes the five ‘official’ nuclear weapon states as
permanent veto-wielding members, is also a key component of the global non-proliferation
regime.
Bilateral agreements to limit nuclear arsenals, particularly of the US and the Soviet
Union/Russian Federation, also contributed to the regime.
The UNSC (particularly the five permanent members—the P5) supported the NPT’s mandate in
two ways. First, the Council regularly passed resolutions to buttress the NPT arrangements.
Resolution 225 of 19 June 1968, adopted just before the NPT was opened for signatures on 1
July 1968, was a sop to countries to sign the NPT and give up the right to nuclear weapons in
return for the most perfunctory of security guarantees. The Council passed similar resolutions on
non-proliferation. Second, the Council also took up specific cases of proliferation either on its
own volition (as in the case of South Africa) or at the behest of the IAEA (Art. XII.C of the
IAEA’s statute also allows it, at the behest of its board, to refer cases to the UNSC)—as was
evident in the case of Iran, DPRK, and Syria.
UNSC Resolution 418 of 1977 expressed grave concern at Pretoria being on the ‘threshold of
producing nuclear weapons’ and decided that ‘all States shall refrain from any co-operation with
South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons’11 even though South
Africa was not a NPT member. South Africa was the first country to be sanctioned by the
Council.
Article 11 of UN Charter mandate for disarmament and regulating armaments.
Informal arrangements to deal with proliferation by states outside NPT. Eg. MTCR - A related
initiative was the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime created by the world’s seven most
industrialized nations (Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and
West Germany) in the waning days of the Cold War, to primarily curtail the spread of missiles
capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The regime had two approaches to accomplish this: first,
to coordinate policies and practices in supplying missiles and missile components to non-
members; second, to limit the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons by
curtailing the spread of ballistic missiles that could deliver such weapons. The regime has been
reasonably successful in streamlining and coordinating the policies of MTCR members.
HUMAN RIGHTS
HR is an issue between a nation and its citizens. So earlier, int. law did not govern it because int.
law between states. Now, this position had changed.
Art 1 UN Charter – 3. To achieve international cooperation … in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion…
Other provisions in the UN Charter contributed to placing human rights firmly on the
organization’s agenda.
The UN Charter did not define the term “human rights” but left the member states to give it
meaning, which they began doing when the General Assembly adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) without dissent on December 10, 1948. The same year,
the General Assembly also adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Genocide.
Standard-setting continued with a focus on nondiscrimination and equality for disadvantaged
groups. The 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was the
first of a series of treaties addressing equal rights. The UN subsequently adopted instruments
concerning women, children, migrant workers, and the disabled.44 The UDHR became two
Covenants, one on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the other on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
NGOs and international civil servants working exclusively on human rights issues are clearly a
major factor in agenda-setting by the UN.
The media also play a significant role in identifying human rights issues that need resolution. By
documenting abuses, the media often generate public outrage that helps create coalitions of
NGOs and others to mobilize action.54 Compelling media imagery can thus bring an issue
forward.
like standard-setting, human rights compliance mechanisms and enforcement procedures have
evolved over time and become gradually stronger, certainly at the regional level.
The Charter contains numerous references to human rights but only expressly mentions two:  the
right to self-determination67 and the right to nondiscrimination.
UN specialized agencies such as the ILO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and
Agriculture Organization, all of which have taken up human rights matters within their specific
mandates. Eg. Agencies like the WHO and UNESCO have addressed issues such as
discrimination against those afflicted with HIV/AIDS and guarantees of the cultural rights of
indigenous peoples.
Regional organisations: EU – ECHR, African Union has Banjul Charter
DISPENSING CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Earlier, exclusive prerogative of states.
Now, IO has established tribunals. The most significant judicial institutions that arose on the
world scene in recent decades are the ICTY, ICTR, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the
permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), etc.
Establishment of ICC under Rome Statute.
ICC comes into picture when state is unwilling or unable to prosecute.
No sovereign immunity under Rome Statute.
Three ways to go to ICC – referral through UNSC, state referral or through prosecutrix.
HUMANITARIAN ACTION

FUNCTIONS OF IO
LAWMAKING
Talk about legal personality - before it was thought that international organizations could
produce law (whether soft or hard), it was necessary to establish as a general principle that
organizations meeting certain criteria had international legal personality. Without possessing this
attribute, it would not be possible for an organization to produce law.
Notes
MONITORING PROCESSES
SANCTIONS
The international community can use sanctions to change the behaviour of a country or regime,
in cases where that country or regime is violating human rights, waging war or endangering
international peace and security.

Sanctions vary by country and situation. Possible sanctions include:

 an arms embargo (ban on weapons, protective attire, military vehicles, etc.);

 an embargo on the import and/or export of certain goods, software and technology. For
example, equipment needed to develop missiles or atomic weapons. Embargos can also
cover goods that generate money for a country's leaders, like oil or timber;
 an additional permit requirement for sensitive goods, software and technology, which
could be used in arms programmes;
 restrictions on loans and credit for certain people/companies;
 freezing the assets of certain people/companies;
 travel and visa restrictions (visa bans) for certain people.

The purpose of the sanctions is often:

 to change undesirable behaviour (e.g. Syria);

 to limit opportunities for undesirable behaviour (e.g. Iran, extensive restrictions on
technology/knowledge in the nuclear sector);
 to deter other countries from choosing an undesirable course of action

The Security Council can take action to maintain or restore international peace and security
under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Sanctions measures, under Article 41,
encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed force.
Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes. The Security Council has
applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain
terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.

The measures are most effective at maintaining or restoring international peace and security
when applied as part of a comprehensive strategy encompassing peacekeeping, peacebuilding
and peacemaking. Contrary to the assumption that sanctions are punitive, many regimes are
designed to support governments and regions working towards peaceful transition. The Libyan
and Guinea-Bissau sanctions regimes all exemplify this approach.

USE OF FORCE
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter2 , which is accepted universally, prohibits the use of force by
countries.
However, Article 2(4) has two exceptions which are covered under Article 42, 43 and 51 of the
UN Charter.
Article 415 of the UN Charter talks about the measures not involving the use of armed forces
which the Security Council may adopt to maintain diplomatic relationship between the states.
Such measures may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail,
sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of
diplomatic relations.

By collectively reading Articles 42, 43 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, the two exceptions
to Article 2(4) can be categorized as the framework of the organization's collective security
system and the self-defence claim. It can be said that the states have widely used the exception of
'Self-Defence' to use force against different countries, and the said exception continues to be
widely in use.

A bare perusal of Article 51 would show that the Article itself points out some conditions subject
to which the force of Self-Defence can be invoked. The said conditions can be categorised as
under:

 Whichever state is invoking the exception of self-defence, shall first report the same to
Security Council, and the said condition has been followed by states without any defaults
since the case of Nicaragua8
 The exception of self-defence can be invoked only until the Security Council has taken
action to restore and maintain international peace, therefore, it can be said the use of
force by way of self-defence is only a temporary measure.
 Even though Article 51 does not explicitly state so, however, the ICJ in several cases 9 has
reiterated that use of force by way self-defence has to be necessary and proportionate.
It is an undisputed fact that the non-state actors or terrorists have caused an immense amount of
trouble and suffering to the whole world in the last few decades. As a result of this, the states
have fallen in a predicament as to how to deal with the terrorists in a foreign territory.

The courts have started accepting the use of force against non-state actors as self-defence, after
the infamous attacks of 9/11 in the United States and since then no new exceptions to use of
force have been introduced.

However, the primary issue that emerges from use of force against the non-state actors in the
form of selfdefence is - when is it legal or illegal to use the exception of self-defence for using
force in a foreign state or territory.

The most relevant instance on the said issue is the well-known case of Pulwama attack, wherein
India used force against a foreign state, intruding its territory, in an act of self-defence against
non-state actors. The said attack was said to be "unlawful armed reprisal in the guise of self-
defence"11 However, India justifies its act under the exception "self-defence" to protect its own
country from the armed acts of non-state actors.

Therefore, since the 9/11 attacks and till date it can be said, that the exception of self-defence has
not only evolved but has also emerged as a means for the states to protect themselves and its
citizens from the nonstate actors.

DISPUTE SETTEMENT

Disputes are inextricably linked to international relations. International dispute settlement is

concerned with the techniques and institutions which are used to solve international disputes
between States and/or international organizations. Increasingly these disputes are no longer just
primarily between states but also between states and other parties like international organizations
and other non-state actors, and between these actors mutually. In this context the Charter of the
United Nations (UN) plays a major role, in particular, regarding disputes between states. Article
2(3) of the UN Charter states that all Member States have to settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not
endangered. This view was again confirmed in 1982 in a resolution (Res. 37/10) of the UN
General Assembly, the so-called Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International
Disputes.

As the UN Charter does not prescribe in which way or by what means disputes need to be
resolved, the parties are free to choose their international dispute settlement mechanism. In the
framework of international peace and security Article 33 of the UN Charter provides a number of
alternatives to choose from in resolving disputes, e.g., negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. Notwithstanding the free choice of means the
Manila Declaration underlines the legal obligation of parties to find a peaceful solution to their
dispute and refrain from action that might aggravate the situation. The methods and procedures
of international dispute settlement also largely apply to non-state actors. These various forms of
peaceful dispute settlement are the subject of this general research guide. In addition, there are
research guides available on International (Commercial) Arbitration, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, and the International Court of Justice. Information and resources on disputes
concerning foreign investment and investment arbitration can be found in the research guide on
Foreign Direct Investment.