No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the practice of UN peacekeeping operations during the first decade of the post-Cold War era, focusing on three cases: Somalia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, and Kosovo. During the early 1990s, the international community escalated its expectations of and demands upon the UN and its peacekeepers for massive and expanded interventions to deal with increased intra-state conflicts. In this sense, the interventions in Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were the test cases of the UN's capabilities and the political willingness of the international community. Many believe that the peacekeeping experiences in both regions were one of the most important developments for the evolution of UN peacekeeping operations in the 1990s. This thesis argues that the operations in Somalia and Bosnia were not evidence of the evolution of peacekeeping, but were cases of the misuse of peacekeeping techniques, and furthermore that this misuse was the key reason for the failures of the operations. In other words, the deployment of UN peacekeepers to places where there was no peace to keep deeply affected the outbreak of the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia and the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia. The decision-makers of the UN and member states of the Security Council employed an inappropriate measure to tackle the crises that required well-prepared military enforcement actions in terms of planning and capabilities including structured command and control systems. As an agential factor of the failures in Somalia and Bosnia, the misuse of peacekeeping techniques was deeply affected by the structural features of the post-Cold War order: the increase of intra-state or regional armed conflicts with intense hostility on an unprecedented scale and the construction of an identity by Western governments to tackle conflicts stemming from the widespread belief of the `liberal triumph' in the early post-Cold War era. For the better performance of future peacekeeping operations, the Kosovo intervention has taught two useful lessons: the major involvement of regional military organization and use of air power.

Recent years have seen an increasing emphasis on local ownership in UN peacebuilding. Advocates of local ownership assert that it boosts the legitimacy and sustainability of UN peacebuilding by helping to preserve the principles of self- determination and non-imposition of externally-conceived solutions onto post-conflict countries in an activity that can contravene them. However, while the UN perceives local ownership as enabling it to act in accordance with these principles, it also perceives local ownership to imperil the achievement of its operational goals, thus bringing its normative and operational objectives into conflict. This thesis evaluates the UN’s discourse, understandings, and operationalizations of local ownership in peacebuilding. Drawing on examples from the UN peace operation in DR Congo, it shows that despite the UN’s regular invocation of local ownership discourse, it operationalizes ownership in restrictive and selective ways that are intended to protect the achievement of operational goals but that consequently limit self-determination and increase external imposition on the host country. This gap between the rhetoric and reality of ownership suggests that the UN uses local ownership primarily as a discursive tool for legitimation, one intended to reconcile the organization’s normative and operational imperatives. However, because its actions do not match its rhetoric, the UN’s attempts to generate legitimacy through discourse appear to fall flat, particularly in the eyes of local actors. Moreover, because of contradictions in the ways that the UN operationalizes local ownership, it not only deepens the curtailment of self-determination and the degree of external imposition, it also undercuts its ability to realize the very operational goals it is trying to protect. Ultimately, because it is a contradictory and contested concept, local ownership fails to eliminate or ‘fix’ the trade-offs the UN faces in peacebuilding, suggesting that the UN must instead accept them and incorporate them into its goals and expectations.

Le droit international classique volontaire basé sur la notion absolue de la souveraineté étatique est remis en cause par l’émergence des règles impératives (jus cogens). A cet égard, la cristallisation des droits humains impératifs est le résultat du processus d’humanisation du droit international moderne où les règles impératives des droits humains de rangs supérieurs se situent au sommet. On peut estimer que l’acceptation des droits humains impératifs créée des obligations erga omnes de protection pour les États membres de la communauté internationale. Dans ce cadre, dans le cas de violations des droits humains impératifs, tous les États sont directement affectés, touchés et lésés par les violations en question et ont le droit d’agir. A cet effet, il nous semble que tous les États peuvent adopter des contre-mesures individuelles à l’encontre de l’État fautif, violateur des droits humains impératifs. Dans le cas de violations des droits humains impératifs, il nous paraît aussi que, sous certaines conditions, les États peuvent recourir à une intervention militaire à but humanitaire, même sans l’avis favorable du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies. Aussi, selon certaines conditions, les États peuvent fournir une aide humanitaire aux victimes des violations des droits humains impératifs survenues à l’extérieur de leur territoire, même sans le consentement de l’État territorial. Les États sont aussi tenus de réprimer les crimes de jus cogens commis à l’extérieur de leur territoire. Dans ce contexte, il nous semble que les États en appliquant la règle aut dedere aut judicare, peuvent poursuivre les étrangers suspectés d’avoir commis des crimes de jus cogens. Dans ce cadre, les États doivent appliquer la règle aut dedere aut judicare en respectant l’obligation de non refoulement afin de prévenir les violations des droits humains impératifs à l’étranger. Il nous paraît aussi que les États en appliquant la règle aut dedere aut judicare, doivent prévoir la compétence universelle des juridictions internes. A cet égard, les États peuvent exercer la compétence universelle à l’encontre des crimes de jus cogens commis à l’étranger par l’étranger et sur l’étranger. Dans ce cadre, il nous semble que les États peuvent exercer la compétence universelle absolue. A cet effet, un État peut déclencher une poursuite pénale à l’encontre de l’étranger suspecté d’avoir commis des crimes de jus cogens, même si ce dernier n’est pas présent et/ou en détention sur le territoire de l’État du for. Il nous semble aussi que, l’immunité des hauts représentants d’État, ainsi que les lois d’amnistie étrangères, ne peuvent pas empêcher l’État du for d’exercer la compétence universelle afin de protéger les intérêts généraux de la communauté internationale dans son ensemble. / Traditional international law based on absolute notion of state sovereignty, is challenged by theemergence of peremptory norms Çus cogens). In this respect, the crystallization of peremptory humanrights norms is the result of the process of humanization of modern international law where theperemptory human rights norms of superior ranks place at the summit. We could believe that theacceptance of peremptory human rights norms creates erga omnes obligations of protection for States,members of the international community. In this context, in the case of violations of peremptoryhuman rights norms, all States are directly affected and injured by the violations in question and have the right to react. To this end, we believe that all States can adopt individual countermeasures against the wrongdoer state, violator of peremptory human rights norms. In the case of violations ofperemptory human rights norms, under certain conditions, States may resort to military interventionfor humanitarian purposes, even without the autholization of the United Nations Security Council.Also, under certain conditions, States can provide humanitarian aid to victims of violations ofperemptory human rights norms occurred outside their territory, even without the consent of theterritorial state. States are also required to suppress jus cogens crimes committed outside their territory. In this context, we believe that States can apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare and prosecute aliens suspected of jus cogens crimes. In this context, States that apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare, must respect the obligation of non-refoulement to prevent violations of peremptory human rights norms abroad. It seems to us that States that apply the principle of aut dedere aut judicare must also apply the principle of universal jurisdiction before their internal courts. In this regard, States can exercise universal jurisdiction againsl jus cogens crimes committed abroad, by foreigners and against foreigners. In this context, we believe that States may exercise the absolute universal jurisdiction. To this end, a State may initiate criminal proceedings against alien suspected of jus cogens crimes, even if helshe is not present and/or in custody in the territory ofthe forum State. It also seems to us that the immunity of senior state representatives and foreign amnesty laws, cannot prevent the forum State to exercise universal jurisdiction in order to protect the general interests of the international community as a whole.

The aim of this thesis is to discuss the concepts of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P), and; to investigate how best to apply the concepts in the face of humanitarian crises, in order to address concerns about their implementation. The failure of the Security Council to react to grave human rights abuses committed in the humanitarian crises of the 1990s, including Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992), Rwanda (1994), Bosnia (1993-1995) Haiti (1994-1997), and Kosovo (1999),triggered international debatesabout: how the international community should react when the fundamental human rights of populations are grossly and systematically violated within the boundaries of sovereign states, and; the need for a reappraisal of armed humanitarian intervention. Central to the debate was whether the international community should continue to adhere unconditionally to the principle of non-intervention enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, or take a different course in the interest of human rights. The debate culminated in the establishment of the Canadian International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2000, with the mandate to find a balance between respect for sovereignty and intervention, for purposes of protecting human rights. Much of the scholarly literature on military intervention for human protection purposes deals with the legality and legitimacy of the military dimension of the concepts. The significance of the thesis is that: it focusesthe investigation on the potential abuse of the use of force for human protection purposes, when moral arguments are used to justify an intervention that is primarily motivated by the interests of the intervener, and; the propensity to use disproportionate force in the attainment of the stated objective of human protection, by powerful intervening states. The central argument of the thesis is that there are double standards, selectivity, abuses, andindiscriminate and disproportionate use of force in the implementation of R2P by powerful countries, and; that, whether a military intervention is unilateral, or sanctioned by the UN Security Council, there is the potential for abuse, and in addition, disproportionate force may be used.The thesis makes recommendations to address these concerns, in order to ensure the survival of the concept. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL.D.