Ending Impunity: New Tools for Criminal Accountability in UN Peace Operations

June 29, 2009

Panelists

William Durch, Senior Associate and Director, Future of Peace Operations Program, Stimson Center

William O’Neill, Program Director, Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum, Social Science Research Council

Diane Orentlicher, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

Colette Rausch, Acting Director, Rule of Law Center of Innovation, US Institute of Peace

 

---

 

Stimson Center Senior Associate and Future of Peace Operations (FOPO) Director William Durch began the workshop by introducing Stimson's newest publication, Improving Criminal Accountability in United Nations Peace Operations. The report chronicles and evaluates UN efforts to address criminal accountability. To date, these efforts have been largely administrative or emphasize the responsibility of states of nationality to prosecute. The report acknowledges that these are useful initial steps but stresses that they are not sufficient, particularly given the poor record of states of nationality in stepping up to their responsibilities to prosecute their nationals. The report thus proposes adding one more step to the criminal justice process: when states of nationality are unable or unwilling to prosecute – or their criminal justice systems fail to meet threshold requirements under international humanitarian and human rights law – and the host state’s system fails scrutiny in whole or in part (likely for post-conflict states), then UN peace operations’ mandates and status of mission/forces agreements (SOMA/SOFA) should provide authority for the United Nations to establish criminal justice mechanisms in partnership with the host state to prosecute crimes committed by UN non-military personnel.

 

One panelist with experience working in UN field missions discussed the benefits of a positive working environment, adding that even something as simple as regular and reliable access to email made a critical difference in morale, and therefore prevention of frustration among personnel and misconduct. But a positive environment is only as good as the people operating within it, necessitating improved professionalization of personnel through more effective training and logistical preparation. While police increasingly must carry out complex mandates for robust policing, and despite many states’ admission of the need for accountability, justice mechanisms are not well-developed due to politically sensitive issues of sovereignty.

 

Panelists also suggested that, despite the difficulties that might arise, there are important benefits to setting up a collaborative system of justice, particularly for promoting rule of law in the host country. As UN peace support operations are increasingly tasked with engaging in rule of law activities, the message that UN personnel will be held accountable in the same manner as citizens of the host state greatly strengthens the UN’s credibility. Additionally, more robust engagement by the UN in mission host judicial sectors in the capacity suggested in the Stimson’s report presents an opportunity to deepen and broaden judicial reform efforts in these states, allowing the UN to model key judicial functions and transfer expertise to those working in the host state’s judicial sector.

 

Another panelist focused on the first step of the approach recommended in the Stimson report, presenting the practical and legal difficulties associated with the decision to transfer a case from the personnel sending state to the mission host state, and recommending a greater focus on boosting the judicial capacity of sending states. While prosecution of UN personnel in mission host states could enhance UN rule of law efforts, relying on a broken judicial system while simultaneously building it up is a daunting challenge. Furthermore, sending states have an interest in prosecuting their own personnel, which could create resistance to sending cases to host states and make sending states willing to receive assistance from the UN and others in implementing necessary reforms.

 

The workshop also included a discussion of the Model Criminal Codes project, which is suggested in the report as a viable model for the collaborative justice process. The project is a multi-year collaboration between the United States Institute of Peace, Irish Centre for Human Rights, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and UN Office on Drugs and Crimes that is featured in the Stimson report as resource to inform UN involvement in strengthening host state judicial systems.

 

Workshop participants posed a number of questions, particularly relating to the political will needed to implement the report’s proposals. The consensus was that criminal accountability is a critically important issue, but some raised concern on the potentially negative side effect that improved accountability would deter states from contributing personnel to peace support operations, and questioned the willingness of sending states to submit to evaluations of their judicial systems. Panelists pointed to precedents that suggest the possibility of overcoming resistance, namely existing agreements between contributors of military personnel and the UN regarding accountability within military justice systems and UN Human Rights Council required assessments of member states’ adherence to human rights and other existing assessment mechanisms performed by external actors. Further discussion revolved around the similarities and differences, and benefits and challenges, of the mechanisms recommended in this report and existing international justice mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court and various hybrid tribunals. All agreed that UN peacekeeping operations and missions host states would benefit from strengthening UN capacity to assist in judicial reform.

 

FOPO will be publishing an issue brief on the results of the workshop. The accountability report can be found here. More information on FOPO’s rule of law project can be found here.

 

When:  Monday, June 29, 2009

Where: Stimson Center

 

• Access Information By
• Topic
  African Union Alliances Arms Control and Disarmament Arms Transfers Biological and Chemical Weapons Border Security Catastrophe Response Civil Military Relations Civilian Police Civilian Protection Codes of Conduct Confidence Building Measures Conflict Prevention Congress Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense Budget Domestic Preparedness Economic Sanctions ECOWAS Emergency Incident Response Energy European Union Export Controls Foreign Policy Global Health Homeland Security Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues Intelligence International Criminal Court International Law International Organizations Military Force Missile Defense Nation Building National Security National Security Budget NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Non-governmental Organizations Nonproliferation Nuclear Weapons Peacekeeping Public-Private Partnerships Radiological Weapons Refugees and Displaced Persons Responsibility to Protect Rule of Law Satellites South Asia Space Stabilization and Reconstruction Terrorism Theater Missile Defense Threat Assessment Treaties United Nations USSR-US Relations
• Country/Region
  Afghanistan Africa Angola Australia Côte D'Ivoire China, People's Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Darfur East Asia Europe FSU (former Soviet Union) Haiti India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Kashmir Region Korea, (North-Democratic People's Republic of) Korea, (South-Republic of) Latin America Lebanon Liberia Middle East and North Africa Northeast Asia Pakistan Persian Gulf Russia Sierra Leone Somalia South Asia Southeast Asia Sudan Taiwan Thailand Timor-Leste United States Vietnam