Discuss the principles of peace keeping

(a) Legitimacy
Legitimacy is the most important asset of a peacekeeping operation. It rests on an understanding that the operation is just and is representative of the will of the international community as a whole rather than some partial interest. At the highest level, the legitimacy of an operation derives from the given its mandate by the security council which, by charter agreement of all member states of the United Nations, is responsible for the maintenance of International peace and security. This legitimacy is further enhanced by the composition of peace keeping operation typically including personnel from a broad spectrum of states. Finally the conduct of the operation itself is an essential element of legitimacy. At all levels the operation must demonstrate firmness in adhering to the Mandate entrusted to it by the international community, coupled with understanding for the parties to the conflict whose vital interests are at stake. The bearing and behavior of all personnel must be of the highest order commensurate with the highest order, commensurate with the important responsibilities entrusted to the peacekeeping operation.

(b) Clear and Achievable Mandate
The Security Council determines the mandate of a peacekeeping operation. It is important for explicit and realistic objectives to be set out in the mandate, so that the peacekeeping operation and the political and material support on which it depends can be focused and directed towards generally recognized and agreed ends. A mandate open to contradictory interpretation could have different components of an operation working at cross purposes and the efforts of government to support different aspects on the operation through diplomatic efforts could be self-canceling. This has sometimes occurred in recent peacekeeping operations.

(c) Consent and Cooperation
In contrast with enforcement, peace-keeping operation and non-coercive in nature and require the consent and co-operation of the parties to the conflict. Though consent is a legal requirement, co-operation is above all a practical requirement for the operation to be able to deploy and carry out its tasks. If a peace-keeping operation is deployed in a highly volatile. Setting possibly involving armed elements not under the control of any discernible authority as in many conflicts within states, Universality of consent in the area of operation becomes less probable. Formal commitments made by the parties at a high level may not necessarily be respected by their followers on the ground. Securing and promotion of consent and cooperation at every level are therefore essential and ongoing tasks of an operation. Is peace keeping operation has secured the agreement of the parties at a senior level to ensure that agreement is transmitted down to the local level, i.e. to those who might otherwise be confronting or challenging the peace-keeper in the field. Similarly, one of the most useful commodities that peace-keepers at whatever local can pass on to their superiors are the fruits of agreement reached with local leaders.
All parties to the conflicts, as well as the countries contributing personnel, should be fully aware of the objectives of an operation as well as the manner in which it intends to carry out its mandate. Incomplete or inaccurate communication may foster suspicion and undermine confidence and trust and consequently cooperation. The necessary transparency can be achieved in part by means of active and comprehensive public affairs involving the parties themselves, to the extent prudence will allow in the execution of the mandate.

(d) Impartiality and Objectivity
The impartial and objective pursuit of the mandate, regardless of provocation and challenge is essential to preserving the legitimacy of the operation and the consent and cooperation of conflicting parties. The effort to maintain impartiality however must not promote inaction. On the contrary, peace keepers must discharge their tasks firmly and objectively, without fear or favour. Importantly, neither side should gain unfair advantage as a result of the activities of a peace keeping operation.

At times a party may come to oppose elements of a settlement to which it had previously agreed and on the basis of which a peace keeping operation had been mandated by the Security Council. In these circumstances, impartiality should not be interpreted as equidistance between the mandate and a party?s newly revised position. Rather, it is the Security Council mandate which manifests the legitimate will of the International Community and which the peace keeping operation is charged to uphold. Since the means which a peace keeping operation utilizes to achieve its objectives do not include forcible military action, political means must therefore be employed to overcome resistance to the mandate, bringing to bear as appropriate the weight of the Security Council and other member states which are in a position to persuade recalcitrant parties. Any decision to revise the mandate can only be taken by the Security council or in exceptional cases, the General Assembly if it was the organ which provided the original mandate of the operation.

(e) Non-Use of force
Peace keeping is a non coercive instrument, based on the consent and cooperation of the parties. Force is not the means which it utilizes to achieve its mandate. However, peace keepers at all times retain the right of self defense, in which case force may be used as a last resort. The right of self-defense ends with the threat that gave rise to it; retaliations no self-defense.

The peace-keepers right to self defense does not end with the defense of his/her own life. It includes defending ones comrades and any person entrusted in ones post, convey, vehicle or rifle. Each peace keeping operation is expected to function s a single integrated until and an attack on any one of its members or sub units engages the right to self-defense of the operation as a whole.

(f) Unity
If it is to be effective a United Nations operation must function as an integrated unit reflecting the will of the international community as a whole. International forces can be vulnerable to attempts by the parties to the conflict t differentiate between contingents and single then out for favourable or unfavourable treatment. This may lead to repercussions in the home countries as well as on the ground which can seriously undermine an operation. Experience has shown that when command in the field is divided and military units receive guidance from national as well as United Nations Headquarters the difficulties inherent in an international operation are exacerbated and the risk of causalities rises. Maintaining the integrated, strictly international character of an operation remains the best safeguard against such a development. It is therefore not permissible for a contingent commander to receive or accept instructions from national authorities on operational matters. Not only does such practice jeopardize the effectiveness of an operation and the safety and security of its personnel, they undermine the very legitimacy of the institution of United Nations peace-keeping.

---

Titany answered the question on August 11, 2021 at 09:52