Peace Operations
Genocide and Crimes against Humanity
Genocide involves acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, encompassing killing, causing harm, inflicting conditions of destruction, preventing births, and transferring children. War crimes, exemplified by historical events like WWII and more recent occurrences in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and Darfur, constitute serious violations of the law of war, leading to individual criminal responsibility. Ethnic cleansing, demonstrated in conflicts like Assam violence and the Syrian civil war, entails the forced removal of ethnic or religious groups to achieve ethnic homogeneity. Crimes against humanity encompass deliberate acts in widespread attacks, such as apartheid and rape, as seen in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia.
Ethnic Conflict
Ethnic conflict manifests as clashes between contending ethnic groups, spanning various regions globally. In Africa, conflicts like the Darfur war, South Sudanese civil war, and Rwandan civil war underscore the complexities. Asian conflicts, including those in Myanmar, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Sri Lanka, contribute to regional tensions. The Middle East witnesses ethnic strife in the Syrian civil war, Yemeni civil war, and the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, while Europe grapples with conflicts like the Kosovo war and Bosnian war.
Riots and Armed Conflicts / Civil War
Various approaches explain the occurrence of riots and armed conflicts. The social psychological approach explores hostile relationships, authoritative support, and stimuli provoking group emotions. Social organizational aspects involve community activists, extremist organizations, politicians, and criminals profiting from tensions. The instrumentalist approach examines opportunities, extremist leaders, and media influence. Social mobilization investigates how ethnic groups mobilize through existing social organizations. Social psychology explores followership through group myths and fears.
Resolution of Ethnic Civil Wars
Resolving ethnic civil wars involves diverse strategies. Compromise settlements, exemplified by the Sudan civil war in 1972 or the Oslo Accords in 1993, sometimes collapse later. Power-sharing models, as witnessed in post-apartheid South Africa and the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, seek to distribute power among conflicting groups. Military victories can be achieved by governments, as seen in Nigeria in the 1960s, or by rebel ethnic groups leading to the partition of Bengal and the independence of Bosnians.
Peace Operations
Peace operations encompass conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and peacebuilding. These actions aim to observe, monitor, and contribute to rebuilding war-torn societies. The effectiveness of peace operations varies based on factors such as consent, neutrality, impartiality, the spectrum of force, and authorization.
| Traditional Peacekeeping | Peace Operations | |
|---|---|---|
| Consent | Universal consent | General consent of target populations, not of spoilers |
| Neutrality | Political neutrality between main conflict parties | No neutrality if a conflict party opposes the mandate |
| Impartiality | Impartiality in fulfilling mandate | Impartiality in fulfilling mandate |
| Spectrum of force | Non-use of force except in self-defense | Full spectrum of force needed to fulfill mandate |
| Authorization | International mandate | Normally uphold UN Charter purposes & principles, if possible with international mandate (perhaps retrospective) |
Peace Operations Reforms
Reforms in peace operations have been proposed by key figures like Kofi Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi, Jean-Marie Guéhenno, and Ban. These reforms aim to enhance conceptualization, impartial defense, flexibility, robustness, and address current issues like standards, hybrid operations, and the public security gap.
- Kofi Annan (1997)
- Reconceptualization of peacekeeping
- Lakhdar Brahimi (2000)
- Impartial defense, flexibility, robustness
- Jean-Marie Guéhenno (2005)
- 5 goals for Peace Operations 2010
- Ban (2007)
- Restructuring of DPKO
- Current issues
- Standards
- Hybrid operations
- Public security gap
Sovereignty vs. Responsibility
The Westphalian system upholds sovereignty and non-interference, assuming sovereign states are the best guardians of human security. However, humanitarian emergencies like genocide, mass killing, and ethnic cleansing challenge this assumption, necessitating international society’s responsibility despite barriers posed by sovereignty and national interests.
Responsibility to Protect
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a global political commitment to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. R2P involves three pillars: the protection responsibilities of the state, international assistance and capacity-building, and timely and decisive response.
R2P in Practice
R2P has been applied in various crises, including Darfur in 2006, Libya in 2011, Côte d’Ivoire in 2011, South Sudan in 2011, Yemen in 2011, Syria in 2012, and the Central African Republic in 2013, with corresponding UN resolutions and peacekeeping operations.