HKMUN 2012 – Chair Report Forum: Security Council Issue: Peacekeeping and Security Sector Reform Student Officer: Resa Ng Position: President of the Security Council Note: This document serves as an introduction to the topic. All delegates are strongly advised to supplement this document with independent research. ______________________________________________________________________
An Introduction: Aims for a Resolution This topic focuses on reforming the active role of United Nations Security Council in safeguarding ‘international peace and security’. This is primarily in regard to peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, and reforming the way in which the Council administers its missions. Security Sector Reform (SSR) is a secondary concern dealing with the post-conflict reforms of particularly vulnerable nations at risk of relapse into violence. The two actions are closely linked in that peacekeeping is a short-term, immediate measure followed by more systemic Security Sector Reforms acting in the long-run; the coordination of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) with the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) is an example the interconnected roles between Peacekeeping and SSR. The aims for this resolution include; • Classification of United Nations Actions and Conflicts “breach of peace”, “threat to peace” and “action of aggression” • Classification of Security Council actions, particularly “all necessary means”, and; o Establishment of a criteria for the use of force • Recommendation for the future role of the United Nations, particularly in response to the High Level Panel’s report to the Secretary General.1 • Establishing common-standards for SSR to take place after the subsiding of hostilities within post-conflict zones • Integrating Peacekeeping Missions with SSR efforts to ensure stability is held in the long term. • Achieve consensus on an international definition of SSR 1
High level Panel, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility Report of the High level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN doc. A/59/565 of 2 Dec. 2004.
Security Sector Reform Security Sector Reform is a concept that aims to rebuild and reform a state’s security sector (civil defence, policing, justice system and other security related areas) to a state at which is conducive to development, poverty reduction, good governance and, in particular, the growth of democratic states and institutions based on the rule of law. This relies on the ability of the state to mitigate its people’s vulnerabilities through development, and to use a range of policy instruments to prevent or address security threats that affect society’s well-being. This includes establishing appropriate civilian oversight of security actors. Hence, a broader range of state institutions is now being considered in the provision of security, with the military seen as one instrument among many. The ‘security sector’ includes traditional security actors such as the armed forces and police; oversight bodies such as the executive and legislature; civil society organisations; justice and law enforcement institutions such as the judiciary and prisons; as well as non-state security providers. In the context of the United Nations, SSR is conducting changes that ensure the long-term security through reforms of policing, self-defence and with regards to the rule of law. In general, the United Nations supports security sector reform (SSR) to ensure the development of effective, efficient, affordable and accountable security institutions. SSR aims to enhance effective and accountable security for the State and its peoples. SSR transforms institutions to make them more professional and more accountable. In this topic, such actions would apply to post-conflict situations where the United Nations has been active within, aiming to ensure that after peace has been restored through UN Peacekeepers, a lasting stability can endure. Typical efforts would include; • • • •
Combating Small Arms and Light Weapons Establishing Rule of Law and an effective justice system (both in the transitional period and in the long-term) Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) of former soldiers, fighters and other combatants, particularly with those involving minors. Combating trafficking in drugs, weapons and human beings
Currently, no single model of security sector exists, the UN considers the security sectors usually include structures, institutions and personnel responsible for the management, provision and oversight of security. These could include defence, law enforcement, corrections, intelligence services and institutions responsible for border management, customs and civil emergencies. In some cases, elements of the judicial sector responsible
for cases of alleged criminal conduct and misuse of force and included. The security sector should also include management and oversight bodies and, in some instances, may involve informal or traditional security providers. The reform of a country’s security sector is essential in post-conflict contexts. In those settings, making people feel safe and secure and (re)-building confidence between the State and its people is vital for sustainable peace and development. In other contexts, SSR can even prevent conflicts or crisis from emerging or resurging and it is also a process that many States undertake on a regular basis to respond to emerging threats or potential internal or external pressures. Challenges There are also a number of associated challenges involved in the implementation of SSR: 1. It can be difficult to find local ownership for SSR, especially where it is most needed, for example where security forces are part of the problem or where SSR may have the potential to change current power relationships. 2. SSR is expensive and human resource intensive – it requires the cooperation of a wide range of actors and expertise from a range of different governmental departments and non-governmental institutions. 3. SSR includes a wide range of activities and can be deployed in support of a number of key objectives. This can often lead to inconsistencies and unevenness in implementation. The challenge is to provide a consistent and coherent overall framework with some form of prioritisation to avoid a mixed bag of ad hoc activities. 4. SSR takes a long-time to bring about changes, which may deter donors from engaging in this type of work. Views on Future UN SSR Efforts In 2007, shortcomings in the United Nations’ engagement in SSR were acknowledged by member states in the Security Council and the General Assembly (more specifically, the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, referred to as the C-34). Member states recognized the importance of enhancing the United Nations’ approach to SSR. In its 2007 Presidential Statement, the Security Council acknowledged the need for a comprehensive report of the secretary-general on UN approaches to SSR. In its 2007 report, the C-34 recognized the need for a holistic and coherent approach to SSR within the UN system and recommended the need for an overall strategy to identify and clarify the main elements of the concept of SSR. It also requested the secretary-general to prepare a comprehensive report on UN approaches to SSR. In response, the United Nations established the interagency SSR Task Force, cochaired by the United Nations
Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and UNDP, to meet this request and to work toward developing a common UN approach to SSR. In January 2008, the secretary-general released a report entitled “Securing Peace and Development: The Role of the United Nations in Supporting Security Sector Reform.” This report is significant in that it is the organization’s first clear articulation of a UN defini- tion of the security sector and the objectives of security sector reform. It was prepared by DPKO and UNDP but under the overall guidance of the interagency SSR Task Force and after broad consultation with member states, regional organizations, research centers, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), UN field missions, and other stakeholder groups. The report outlines that the United Nations has assumed a broad or comprehensive approach to security, which focuses on security of states and peoples and whose goal is to support the maintenance of international peace and security and to help governments and peoples build a world where freedom from fear and want is a reality for all. It acknowl- edges that effective and accountable security institutions are essential for sustainable peace and development. With this understanding in mind, the report proposes a broad and inclusive definition of the security sector. The report notes that the “security sector” is a broad term often used to describe the structures, institutions, and personnel responsible for the management, provision, and oversight of security in a country. According to the report, security sector reform describes a process of assessment, review, and implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation, led by national authorities, which has as its goal the enhancement of effective and accountable security for the state and its peoples without discrimination and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is founded on a number of core principles: • • •
SSR will be undertaken only on the basis of a national decision, a Security Council mandate, a General Assembly resolution; SSR must be anchored in national ownership; The United Nations’ approach to SSR must be flexible and tailored to each specific context; and
The United Nations’ role in SSR will remain modest, while member states and their organizations will remain the leading providers of assistance in this area. O ver the past year, the United Nations has made steady progress in putting forward its plans for support to national SSR actors, but much more remains to be done. In mid- March 2008, DPKO briefed the C-34 on the secretary-general’s report, and in mid-May the Security Council discussed the report and the United Nations’ emerging approach to SSR. On the basis of the C-34’s 2008 report and the Security Council’s Presidential Statement on SSR, the United Nations is moving forward in a number of priority areas identified in the secretary-general’s report and by an interagency program plan agreed by the SSR Task Force. These priority areas aim to build UN system wide capacities to better support national authorities undertaking SSR.
The United Nations’ SSR program plan will be managed by the SSR team, which is located in the Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions in DPKO. This SSR team will continue to expand to a full staff of eight to ten members. The future direction of the United Nations’ emerging approach to SSR will be implemented under the overall guidance of the interagency SSR Task Force. Over the coming months, the United Nations will become more operationally focused by seeking to deliver tangible support to the field, while continuing to build a community of SSR practice across the organization.2
Peacekeeping The United Nations Peacekeeping helps countries torn by conflict create the conditions for lasting peace. It comprises of civilian, police and military personnel. The Department of peacekeeping operations provides executive direction to UN Peacekeeping operations around the world and maintains contact with the Security Council, troop and financial contributors and parties to the conflict in the implementation of Security Council mandates. The Department works to integrate the efforts of UN, governmental and nongovernmental entities in the context of peacekeeping operations. DPKO also provides guidance and support on military, police, mine action and other relevant issues to other UN political and peace building missions. The Department of Field Support provides support in the areas of finance. Success is never guaranteed because UN Peacekeeping goes to the most physically and politically difficult environments. The UN created the institution of peacekeeping, even though there was no express basis for peacekeeping operations in the Charter scheme. Such UN peacekeeping operations were to be conducted with the consent of the host state, to be impartial in nature, and were not to involve the use of force other than in self-defence. However, these limitations on peacekeeping have been challenged, as in the Congo (1960–4), and later in Bosnia– Herzegovina and Somalia. Since the end of the Cold War the Security Council has been much more active in peacekeeping; it has often used Chapter VII of the UN Charter in creating peacekeeping forces or to authorize them to take robust action. There is an ongoing debate about the proper nature of peacekeeping, but it is fair to say that the main problems facing the UN in this sphere have been in securing adequate resources in order to best resource missions. At current levels, financing for peacekeeping missions is determined by the “ability and size” of nations to make payments. The peacekeeping budget for this year is tallied to be at $7.84 billion3, with the following distribution4; 2
McFate, Sean. Securing the Future a Primer on Security Sector Reform in Conflict Countries. Rep. no. 209. Washington D.C.: UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE, 2008. Print. 3 A/C.5/66/14
1. United States (27.14%) 2. Japan (12.53%) 3. United Kingdom (8.15%) 4. Germany (8.02%) 5. France (7.55%) 6. Italy (5.00%) 7. China (3.93%) 8. Canada (3.21%) 9. Spain (3.18%) 10. Republic of Korea (2.26%) Current Stand-by Arrangements System In order to conduct peace operations, the UN currently requests troops from member states using the United Nations Standby Arrangements System (UNSAS). The system was initiated in 1990, and in 1992, the then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called for its support in An Agenda for Peace. The UN describes the UNSAS as being '... based upon commitments by Members States to contribute specified resources within agreed response time for United Nations peacekeeping operations'.2 Under the system, these resources remain on stand-by in their home country until a request for their use is made by the Secretary-General. Even at this stage, member states still have discretion about whether their troops or resources offered under the system can be used in individual operations. Although individual soldiers on peace operations may be directed by foreign commanders, a troop contributing nation always has the discretion to withdraw its forces. The UN also guarantees that the resources made available to it under the system will be used exclusively for peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council. As of 1 July 2000, 88 countries expressed their willingness to participate in the system. Sixty-six member states provided a list of capabilities that they would make available. Forty-four member states had provided the UN with more detailed planning information, while 33 member states had negotiated an MOU with the UN for their participation in the system. Despite the existence of this system since 1990, there are some types of specialised equipment and personnel which the UN lacks access to: Whilst there is no shortage of infantry, major deficiencies exist in the areas of strategic lift, multi role logistics, road transport and utility aircraft (i.e. the force multipliers). Additionally there is a shortage of civilian police.5
4 5
A/64/220 DFAT. Submission No. 107, p. 1287.
Key UN reports (Time frame) 2011 • Civilian capacity in the aftermath of conflict 2010 • Progress in the implementation of the global field support strategy 2009 • Implementation of the recommendations of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping operations • Support to African Union Peacekeeping operations authorized by the UN • Women and peace and security • Protection of civilians in armed conflict 2008 • Securing peace and development: the role of the UN in supporting security sector reform 2007 • Peacekeeping Best Practices • Comprehensive report on strengthening the capacity of the UN to manage and sustain peace operations 2006 • Enhancing United Nations support for the rule of law • Exerpts from the report of the SG, outlining reform strategy
Mandate of the United Nations Article 43 1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. 2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The United Nations, in its original form, was intended to have a standing army to help it with its efforts to promote “international peace and security”. The aims set out within the United Nations charter were intended to be fulfilled by a “Military Staff Committee” comprising of Generals from the P5 Nations. Article 47 1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament. 2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work. 3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. 4. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 47 laid down the foundations for the Military Staff Committee, however it has since operated in “dormancy”, noted by Naval Historian Dr. Eric Grove as a “a sterile monument to the faded hopes of the founders of the UN”. Yet there have been recent efforts to revive the MSC, particularly by the Russian Delegation6. Limitations of Reform All actions taken by the Security Council must reflect the spirit of the 1948 UN Charter. Thus reforms taken to introducing a UN Standing Peacekeeping Force, or any similar arrangement, must be aligned to the Articles within the Charter. Concerns arise particular with the nature of sovereignty, and where peacekeeping operations could conflict with the armed forces of UN Member States Article 2 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or
6
Zaemskiy, Vladimir F. "Statement." UN.int. Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Russian Federation, 27 Feb. 2007. Web. 04 Feb. 2012. <http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/Statements/ga/ga_docs/Statement070227.htm>.
shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Despite limitations, the United Nations Security Council has been able to conduct actions not expressly allowed or forbidden by its Charter. Although the Security Council was not able to order the use of force by its own standing army (as provided under Articles 42 and 43), it could ‘authorize’ or ‘call on’ member states to use force. During the Cold War, it did so in the cases of the Korean War and Rhodesia. It said that North Korea had made an armed attack on South Korea and that this constituted a breach of the peace. It accordingly recommended member states to furnish assistance to South Korea to repel the armed attack and restore international peace and security. In the case of Rhodesia the Security Council authorized the UK to use force to intercept ships on the high seas in order to stop the import of oil by the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia. In these resolutions the Security Council did not expressly refer to specific articles of the UN Charter, but it did use the language of Article 39. This established the pattern for the future. The precise legal basis for these two early authorizations of force was not specified and there has been much academic speculation on the subject.7 The basic prohibition on the use of force is set out in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but the Security Council only rarely refers to this provision expressly in its resolutions. It does not make express determinations of violations; instead it very occasionally ‘recalls’ Article 2(4) in the preambles to its resolutions8 The conclusions to be drawn from Security Council resolutions on the interpretation of Article 2(4) are therefore indirect, a matter of inference. If the Security Council condemns a particular use of force, or calls for the withdrawal of troops by a particular state, then it may be inferred in some cases that there has been a breach of Article 2(4). However, such condemnations are comparatively unusual. It is more common for the Security Council to call in general terms for an end to the fighting, the withdrawal of troops by both sides, and for peaceful settlement of a dispute, or for observance of a ceasefire. This is perhaps due to the nature of the Security Council as a political body, where alliances of nations act as pseudo political parties. The Security Council has main duty to “maintain international peace and security” as set out under Article 24 of the founding Charter, hence it rarely condemns, but rather attempts to reconcile a settlement without laying blame or passing on legal responsibility. Yet in the event where direct condemnation of nations does occur (i.e. Apartheid-era South Africa) Instead the Security 7
Lowe, A. V. The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 88. Print. 8 ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’ of 16 Sep. 2005, UN doc. A/Res/60/1 of 24 Oct. 2005, para 79.
Council tends to direct itself to actions that may pressure nations in question. Sanctions are such measures, as set out by Article 41 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;measures not involving the use of armed force to give effect to [the Security Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s] decisionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. In essence, these measures were intended to secure compliance with Security Council requirements, rather than to act as forceful, invasive measures. During the Cold War such measures were taken only in the cases of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia; subsequently there has been a significant increase. Some are clearly not sanctions, but are designed to stop the escalation of a civil war and are imposed on all parties. Others are taken in response to non-cooperation with UN peace efforts. Thus arms embargoes were imposed on one side in conflicts in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. Some are directed against non-state actors such as UNITA, the Bosnian Serbs, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for its failure to surrender Osama Bin Laden. However, measures were ordered against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, Libya for its sponsorship of terrorism, and Liberia for its unlawful intervention in Sierra Leone. These may indeed be seen as sanctions for a breach of international law, but no express reference to Article 2(4) is made. During the Cold War there were unresolved doctrinal disagreements between developed and developing states on Article 2(4), as to whether the prohibition applied only to armed force or whether it also covered economic coercion, and also as to whether force could be used by anti-colonial movements to achieve self- determination. Attempts at lawmaking on these issues by the General Assembly failed because of fundamental disagreements between states. In the Security Council also no authoritative position on the law could be adopted; its debates reveal the opposing positions of states on this issue. There were also disagreements about the application of Article 2(4) to intervention in civil wars. There was general agreement on the law, but political differences between states made the application of the legal rules problematic. It was generally agreed that intervention in a conflict serious enough to be characterized as a civil war was legally prohibited, even at the invitation of the government, unless there had been prior outside intervention. But states typically divided over the following questions: Is there a civil war? Which is the true government? Did it invite outside assistance? Was there outside intervention? These divisions meant that the Security Council was not able to pronounce on the legality of, for example, the US invasion of Grenada or the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Since the end of the Cold War the Security Council has been more willing to pronounce on such issues and often, though not always, to uphold the rights of democratically elected governments.
Existing Issues with Peacekeepers “The unprecedented pace, scope and ambition of U.N. peacekeeping operations have led to numerous serious flaws, limitations, and weaknesses that need to be addressed.” As troubling situations have arisen in recent years, many of them in Africa, the Security Council has found itself under pressure to respond and “do something” even though it may violate the central lesson learned in the 1990s that “United Nations does not wage war.” As a result, U.N. peacekeeping is now being conducted with unprecedented pace, scope, and ambition, and the increasing demands revealed ongoing, serious flaws. Audits and investigations over the past few years have revealed substantial mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in procurement for U.N. peacekeeping and widespread incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and civilian personnel. Potential harm to troops Harm caused to troops due to peacekeeping. The peacekeepers are exposed to danger caused by the warring parties and often in an unfamiliar climate. The well being of peacekeepers is much at risk, such as the mental health problems, suicide, and substance abuse as shown by the percentage of former peacekeepers with those problems. In addition, peacekeepers, even when acting on UN mandate, may become a target for attacks by some of the parties in a conflict. Furthermore, peacekeeping may soften the troops and erode their combat ability, as mission profile of a peacekeeping contingent is totally different from the profile of a unit fighting all-out war. Peacekeeping, human trafficking and forced prostitution Reporters witnessed a rapid increase in prostitution in Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia and Kosovo after UN and NATO peacekeeping forces moved in. In 6 out of 12 country studies, sexual exploitation of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution. Uruguayan President Jose Mujica apologized to Haitian President Michel Martelly over the alleged rape of an 18-year-old Haitian man by Uruguayan U.N. peacekeeping troops. Martelly said "a collective rape carried out against a young Haitian" would not go unpunished. Four soldiers suspected of being involved in the rape have been detained.
Possible solutions â&#x20AC;&#x153;Peacekeeping assessments should be revised to spread the financial burden more equitably among U.N. member states. Without fundamental reform, these problems will likely continue and expand, undermining the U.N.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s credibility and ability to maintain international peace.â&#x20AC;? U.N. peacekeeping operations can be useful and successful if employed with an awareness of their limitations and weaknesses. This awareness is crucial because the demand for U.N. peacekeeping shows little indication of declining in the foreseeable future. This requires the U.N. to press for substantial changes to address serious problems with U.N. peacekeeping. Without fundamental reform, these problems will likely continue and expand, undermining the U.N.'s credibility and ability to accomplish the key mission of maintaining international peace and security. Specifically, the U.N. should: Brahimi analysis In response to criticism, particularly of the cases of sexual abuse by peacekeepers, the UN has taken steps toward reforming its operations. The Brahimi Report was the first of many steps to recap former peacekeeping missions, isolate flaws, and take steps to patch these mistakes to ensure the efficiency of future peacekeeping missions. The UN has vowed to continue to put these practices into effect when performing peacekeeping operations in the future. The technocratic aspects of the reform process have been continued and revitalised by the DPKO in its 'Peace Operations 2010' reform agenda. This included an increase in personnel, the harmonization of the conditions of service of field and headquarters staff, the development of guidelines and standard operating procedures, and improving the partnership arrangement between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), African Union and European Union. 2008 capstone doctrine entitled "United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines"[18] incorporates and builds on the Brahimi analysis. Rapid reaction force A standing group, administered by the UN and deployed by the Security Council, that receives its troops and support from current Security Council members and is ready for quick deployment in the event of future genocides. The U.N has no standing armed forces and is entirely dependent on member states to donate troops and other personnel to fulfll peace operation mandates. Nations should maintain control of their armed forces and refuse to support the establishment of armed forces outside of direct national oversight and responsibility. However, the current arrangement results in an ad hoc system plagued by delays and other shortfalls. The UN should concentrate on increasing peacekeeping resources under its Global Peace Operations Initiative, which has
significantly bolstered the capacity and capabilities of regional troops, particularly in Africa, to serve as peacekeepers. Restructuring of the UN secretariat Transforming the DPKO will require more direct involvement of the Security Council; more staff, supplies, and training; and greatly improved oversight by a capable, independent inspector general dedicated to peace operations. A key element will be incorporating greater flexibility so that the DPKO can rapidly expand and contract to meet varying levels of peace operation activity--including allowing gratis military and other seconded professionals to meet exceptional demands on U.N. peace operations. The UN should also consider relieiving the United Nations Staff Military Committee out of its dormancy, and consider allowing for the establishment of a UN Standing Army or Rapid Reaction Force. The UNMSC should also look at integration with the DPKO, allowing Peacekeepers to enjoy greater logistical support for their missions with the help of P5 nations. General support The broadening of U.N. peace operations into nontraditional missions, such as peace enforcement- and their inability to garner broad international support in terms of troop contributions, logistics support, and funding raise legitimate questions as to whether the U.N. should be engaging in the current number of missions and whether these situations are best addressed through the U.N. or through regional, multilateral or ad hoc efforts. Reevaluation Reevaluate all U.N. operations that date back to the 1990s or earlier to determine whether the U.N. mission is contributing to resolving the situation or retarding that process. If an operation is not demonstrably facilitating resolution of the situation, the U.N. should ask stakeholders wishing to continue U.N. peacekeeping operations to assume the financial burden of the continued operation. Implement mandatory, uniform standards of conduct for civilian and military personnel participating in U.N. peace operations. If the U.N. is to end sexual exploitation, abuse, and other misconduct by peacekeepers, it must do more than adopt a U.N. code of conduct, issue manuals, and send abusers home. The abusers and their governments must face real consequences to create incentives for effective enforcement.
Final Recommendations With reference to this topic’s original aims; • Classification of United Nations Actions and Conflicts “breach of peace”, “threat to peace” and “action of aggression” • Classification of Security Council actions, particularly “all necessary means”, and; o Establishment of a criteria for the use of force • Recommendation for the future role of the United Nations, particularly in response to the High Level Panel’s report to the Secretary General.9 • Establishing common-standards for SSR to take place after the subsiding of hostilities within post-conflict zones • Integrating Peacekeeping Missions with SSR efforts to ensure stability is held in the long term. • Achieve consensus on an international definition of SSR This Council should aim to achieve a solution that integrates the efforts of the DPKO and SSR taken by the UN and by other parties in post-conflict situations. Particular attention should be given to means of which this can be attained, particularly the coordination between member states in military matters through the UNMSC. Serious consideration must be given to allowing for the Military Staff Committee to be relieved of its dormancy, and take its rightful place as a functioning UN organ. The Council should also look to implementing the suggestions as outlined by the High level Panel to the SecretaryGeneral10, as well as reforming the capacity of the United Nations to maintain peace within the boundaries as outlined by the UN Charter.
Useful links for research: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Potential_for_harm_to_troops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all_UN_peacekeeping_missions http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/09/executive-summary-critical-reformsrequired-for-un-peacekeeping http://www.un.org/secureworld/report.pdf http://www.usip.org/files/resources/sr209.pdf 9
High level Panel, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility Report of the High level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN doc. A/59/565 of 2 Dec. 2004. 10 Ibid