This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.D.

This thesis investigates both substantive and procedural issues pertaining to allegations of crimes committed by UN peacekeepers in three African countries, Somalia, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Under the current UN Model Status-of-Forces Agreements, criminal jurisdiction over peacekeepers rests with their sending States. However, although the UN has no criminal jurisdiction, it has been the Office of Internal Oversight Services that has conducted investigations. It is argued that every Status of Force Agreement and every Memorandum of Understanding should contain specific clauses obligating Troop-Contributing Countries to prosecute and the UN to follow-up. If rape, murder, assault, and any other crimes by UN peacekeepers go unpunished, the message sent to the victims is that peacekeepers are above the law. Rape is the most commonly committed crime by peacekeepers, but is usually considered as an isolated act. The procedural issue of prosecuting peacekeepers is investigated in order to establish whether troops can be caught under the ambits of the criminal law of the Host State to hold UN troops criminally accountable for their acts. The laws relative to the elements of each crime and the possible available defences under the three Host States, and the criminal law of South Africa as a Troop-Contributing Country, are discussed. The apparent lack of prosecution is investigated and existing cases of prosecution discussed. Alternatives to the unwillingness by States with criminal jurisdiction under the Status of Forces Agreement or under the Memorandum of Understanding are considered. Considering the current rules related to crimes committed by peacekeepers, the argument put forward is that crimes by peacekeepers must be dealt with completely and transparently though a Convention aiming at barring Troop-Contributing Countries who do not meet their obligations under international law from participating in future operations of peace. This thesis, furthermore, suggests a tripartite court mechanism to fill the lacunae in the law relating to the prosecution of peacekeepers. It considers the issues of reserving jurisdiction over peacekeepers to the Troop-Contributing Countries which are reluctant to prosecute repatriated alleged perpetrators. The victims’ importance in criminal proceedings and their their right to a remedy are highlighted. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.

The principle of complementarity is a tool used to punish the commission of core international crimes. A concerted approach is required to combat war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and aggression. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court needs to fully appreciate the express and implied discretionary powers of states to ensure all possible accountability mechanisms are explored. Failure by the Prosecutor to do so results in missed opportunities to capitalise on various options related to the proper application of complementarity. Therefore, there is a need for consultations to establish that the International Criminal Court and prosecutions can no longer exist without competing alternatives preferred by states. The current misunderstandings on the application of complementarity are rooted in unresolved state and prosecutorial discretions. The endangering of state discretion threatens the integrity and credibility of the International Criminal Court. The unaddressed question of state discretion is also at the centre of disputes between the African Union and the International Criminal Court. Grey areas in the application of complementarity are clearly visible through the inconsistency and diversity of the International Criminal Court decisions and frequent prosecutorial policy proclamations. As a result, prosecutorial discretion needs to be checked. Prosecutorial discretion is checked at the United Nations, International Criminal Court and state levels. The checks at regional level and by non-prosecutorial options need to be explored. The call is for the International Criminal Court not to neglect the legal-political environment which the Court operates in. The environment is essential in demarcating the exercise of discretions. The Kenyatta case is illustrative of the need to invent an interpretation that reflects the evolving theory to practice reality. The development or amendment of a prosecutorial policy is desirable to give guidance on the value, circumstances and priority accorded to justice. The policy should be comprehensive enough to accommodate mechanisms which advocate for strengthened state discretion. For instance, African Union instruments and treaties reveal that the respect of state discretion is one of the core principles of the African Union system. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LL.D.