![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The protection of civilians is a priority in most international peace operations today. There are important differences in the concept, however, in the operations undertaken for example by the UN, NATO, EU and the AU. In particular, a distinction needs to be made between the protection of civilians in ‘peacekeeping’ as compared to ‘peace enforcement’ operations. While in the former a ‘proactive’ approach to protecting civilians is usually adopted, in the latter a ‘reactive’ approach is normally required. These theoretical differences present important implications for those decision-makers mandating the operations as well as those involved in planning and implementing them in the field.
DISCLAIMER
This article has been written in a personal capacity and the views expressed do not represent those of the UN.
Notes
Alexander W. Beadle, ‘Protection of Civilians in Theory – A Comparison of UN and NATO Approaches’, Kjeller: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), 15 Dec. 2010.
Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams, ‘The New Politics of Protection? Côte d'Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Affairs, Vol.87, No.4, 2011, pp.825–50, p.825. The Libya case is the first example of the coercive use of force under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept that was adopted by the international community at the World Summit in 2005. Although R2P is relevant to how both peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations protect civilians the concept is not discussed per se in this article.
Communiqué of the 245th meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council, Addis Ababa, 15 Oct. 2010 (at: www.ausitroom-psd.org/Documents/2010.html).
Communiqué of the 299th meeting of the AU Peace and Security Council, Addis Ababa, 22 Nov. 2011 (at: www.ausitroom-psd.org/Documents/2011.html).
On 15 October 2010, the Council of Europe also approved revised ‘Guidelines on the Protection of Civilians in Common Security and Defence Policy (CDSP) Missions and Operations’ for crisis management. However, as of 2012, the protection of civilians' concept had not been explicitly mentioned in the mandates of CSDP missions and operations.
With respect to UN peacekeeping, the Brahimi Report of 2000 stressed the moral imperative of missions not standing by in the face of mass atrocities, but rather taking steps, within their means, to stop them. See ‘Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations’, UN doc., A/55/305-S/2000/809, 21 Aug. 2000.
See for example Alison Giffen, ‘Addressing the Doctrinal Deficit: Developing Guidance to Prevent and Respond to Widespread of Systematic Attacks Against Civilians’, Report of an International Experts Workshop, 21–24 Sept. 2009, Shrivenham: UK Defence Academy, 2010 (at: www.stimson.org/books-reports/addressing-the-doctrinal-deficit/).
UN political and peacebuilding missions are not dealt with here. Although they are mandated by the Security Council and they undertake protection-related activities, such as the promotion of human rights, they do not have physical protection mandates.
ISAF Commander's, ‘Counterinsurgency Guidance’, Kabul: ISAF Headquarters, Aug. 2009, p.1.
Victoria Holt, Glen Taylor and Max Kelly, ‘Protecting Civilians in the Context of UN Peacekeeping Operations’, Independent Study, New York: OCHA/DPKO, 2009, p.26.
DPKO/DFS, ‘Operational Concept on the Protection of Civilians in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations’, New York: UN, 2008. The most widely-known definition of the protection of civilians is that developed by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in a series of workshops from 1996: ‘all activities aimed at ensuring full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law’. Sylvie Giossi Caverzasio (ed.), ‘Strengthening Protection in War: A Search for Professional Standards: Summary of Discussions among Human Rights and Humanitarian Organizations: Workshops at the ICRC, 1996–2000’, Geneva: ICRC, 2001.
Council of Europe, ‘Guidelines on the Protection of Civilians in CSDP Missions and Operations’, Brussels: Council of Europe, 15 Oct. 2010, p.4.
AU Guidelines for the Protection of Civilians in AU Peace Operations (at: www.africa-union.org), p.2.
Secretary-General's Bulletin, ‘Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law’, UN doc., ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 Aug. 1999.
See DPKO/DFS (see n.11 above).
Beadle (see n.1 above) compares UN and NATO approaches to the protection of civilians as ‘how to protect’ and ‘how not to kill’, as direct and indirect objectives of each kind of operation. See also Stian Kjeksrud, Jacob Aasland Ravndal, Andreas Oien Stensland, Cedric de Coning, Walter Lotze and Erin Weir, ‘Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Comparing Organisational Approaches’, Kjeller: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, 1 Nov. 2011.
Holt, Taylor and Kelly (see n.10 above).
UN doc., S/RES/1894 (2009), 11 Nov. 2009.
The mandate of MINURCAT, which withdrew from Chad at the end of 2010, was ostensibly related to the protection of civilians with a minimal political role.
Beadle (see n.1 above), p.13.
Ibid., p.10.
UNAMA, ‘Annual Report 2010 Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’, Kabul, Mar. 2011(at: http://unama.unmissions.org).
Giffen (see n.7 above).
UN/DPKO, ‘United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines’, New York: UN DPKO, 2008.
As already pointed out, though, the mission is also mandated to protect civilians, regardless of who is the perpetrator of violence against civilians, including the Congolese Army.
For his part, Gbagbo demanded the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, including UNOCI, on the grounds that they favoured the rebels.
UN Security Council Resolution 1975, S/RES/1975 (2011), adopted 30 Mar. 2011.
Bellamy and Williams (see n.2 above), p.835.
See official proceedings of the open debate.
Holt, Taylor and Kelly (see n.10 above).
Giffen (see n.7 above).
See for example, ‘Joint Doctrine Publication 3-40: Security and Stabilization: The Military Contribution (2009)’, Shrivenham: Development, Concept and Doctrine Centre, UK MoD, 2009; US Army, ‘Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24’, Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 2006; Giffen (n.7 above).
Kjeksrud et al. (see n.16 above), p.7.
Ibid., p.27.
The guidance developed by DPKO is not applicable to NATO forces involved in counterinsurgency contexts.
The AU Guidelines are framed by a tiered approach to protection activities, similar to DPKO/DFS (see n.11 above).
Kjeksrud et al. (see n.16 above), p.37.
DPKO, ‘Framework for Drafting Comprehensive Protection of Civilians Strategies in UN Peacekeeping Operations’, New York: DPKO, Mar. 2011, p.1.
AU Communiqué of the 299th meeting (see n.4 above), p.2.
Jim Rolfe, ‘Partnering to Protect: Conceptualizing Civil–Military Partnerships for the Protection of Civilians’, International Peacekeeping, Vol.18, No.5, 2011, pp.561–76; Justin MacDermott and Mans Hanssen, ‘Protection of Civilians: Delivering on the Mandate through Civil–Military Coordination’, Stockholm: Swedish Defense Research Agency, Dec. 2010.
UN/DPKO (see n.24 above), p.24.
Damian Lilly, ‘Peacekeeping and the Protection of Civilians: An Issue for Humanitarians?’, Humanitarian Exchange, No 48, London: Overseas Development Institute, Oct. 2010.
For a useful typology of relationships between military and humanitarian actors in armed conflicts see, ‘IASC Civil–Military Guidelines and Reference for Complex Emergencies’, New York: UNOCHA, 2008.