Thesis (M.B.A.)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2003. / "MBA professional report"--Cover. Thesis advisor(s): Nancy C. Roberts, John E. Mutty. Includes bibliographical references (p. 49-52). Also available online.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

No description available.

Doctor of Philosophy / The hypothesis of this work is that international human rights law and not international humanitarian law is the legal framework that applies to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations in collapsed States where the peacekeepers do not become a party to an armed conflict. In order to test this hypothesis the work begins by examining what is meant by peacekeeping and charts the evolution of peacekeeping from its origins as a passive ad hoc activity to the modern highly complex operations capable of providing the foundations for the recreation of civil society. Chapter two of the work builds on the first chapter by analysing the UN’s theoretical approach to peacekeeping through its major reports. This chapter provides insight into the development of peacekeeping as a theoretical construct and then into a central tool in the UN’s attempt to implement the Charter. Chapters three and four analyse peacekeeping as practiced by the UN in operations conducted under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter. This analysis leads to the conclusion that as a matter of practice the UN and the State parties that have provided the troops to perform peacekeeping under UN control have acted in accordance with international human rights law and that as a result there is evidence of State practice to support an argument that as a matter of customary international law international human rights law applies as the framework for peacekeeping in collapsed States. With a clear grounding in the practice and theory of peacekeeping the work then examines the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law as the legal framework for peacekeeping operations. Suggestions are made with regard to the triggers for international humanitarian law to apply and the conclusion is drawn that the vast majority of UN operations between 1949 and 2003 were conducted beneath the threshold for the application of international humanitarian law. The final chapter of the work analyses the practical application of a human rights framework to peacekeeping and concludes that it provides a flexible and adaptive tool for the restoration of peace and the reconstruction of civil society. As a result of the analysis of UN peacekeeping theory, practice and the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the work concludes that international human rights law provides the framework for UN peacekeeping in collapsed States and that international humanitarian law will only apply where peacekeepers cross the threshold into armed conflict.

Doctor of Philosophy / The hypothesis of this work is that international human rights law and not international humanitarian law is the legal framework that applies to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations in collapsed States where the peacekeepers do not become a party to an armed conflict. In order to test this hypothesis the work begins by examining what is meant by peacekeeping and charts the evolution of peacekeeping from its origins as a passive ad hoc activity to the modern highly complex operations capable of providing the foundations for the recreation of civil society. Chapter two of the work builds on the first chapter by analysing the UN’s theoretical approach to peacekeeping through its major reports. This chapter provides insight into the development of peacekeeping as a theoretical construct and then into a central tool in the UN’s attempt to implement the Charter. Chapters three and four analyse peacekeeping as practiced by the UN in operations conducted under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter. This analysis leads to the conclusion that as a matter of practice the UN and the State parties that have provided the troops to perform peacekeeping under UN control have acted in accordance with international human rights law and that as a result there is evidence of State practice to support an argument that as a matter of customary international law international human rights law applies as the framework for peacekeeping in collapsed States. With a clear grounding in the practice and theory of peacekeeping the work then examines the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law as the legal framework for peacekeeping operations. Suggestions are made with regard to the triggers for international humanitarian law to apply and the conclusion is drawn that the vast majority of UN operations between 1949 and 2003 were conducted beneath the threshold for the application of international humanitarian law. The final chapter of the work analyses the practical application of a human rights framework to peacekeeping and concludes that it provides a flexible and adaptive tool for the restoration of peace and the reconstruction of civil society. As a result of the analysis of UN peacekeeping theory, practice and the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the work concludes that international human rights law provides the framework for UN peacekeeping in collapsed States and that international humanitarian law will only apply where peacekeepers cross the threshold into armed conflict.

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2005. / Thesis Advisor(s): Karen Guttieri, Letitia Lawson. Includes bibliographical references (p. 71-75). Also available online.

Thesis (LLB Honours) -- Australian National University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p.44-55) ALSO available in ELECTRONIC FORMAT via SSRN.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

MAIR / Department of Development Studies / See the attached abstract below

Impartiality has long been a core norm of United Nations peacekeeping. However, since 2000 the dominant conception of impartiality has changed, leading to more coercive forms of peacekeeping. Claims to impartial authority are no longer based exclusively on terms to which all parties consent. Instead, they are premised on a more ambitious and expansive set of norms related to human rights, around which consensus is presumed but not always affirmed. This dissertation critically examines the change in both the conception and practice of impartiality, which, it argues, is an integral part of the emergence of a more assertive liberal internationalism. In doing so, it challenges dominant constructivist approaches within IR that conceive of norms as linear and static. It advances a framework for a multi-level analysis of impartiality as a “composite” and “contested” norm. Through this framework it elucidates the macro-level politics surrounding the norm’s institutionalisation at the UN, as well as the micro-level politics surrounding its implementation in the specific case of the UN mission in Congo (MONUC). The analysis of the processes of both institutionalisation and implementation reveals an absence of consensus over the norm itself, and over the purposes of and actions involved in contemporary peacekeeping. This contestation, together with varying expectations and incentives created by the norm amongst local actors, frequently results in unintended consequences, which are contrary to the norm’s original intent. And yet, despite these consequences, the very nature of assertive impartiality makes it difficult for those who claim such authority to change course. Given that the legitimacy of peacekeeping derives both from whether it is seen to reflect and promote shared values, as from the degree to which it is actually effective, this difficulty raises troubling questions for peacekeeping itself and for the UN, the institution to which it has become so symbolically linked. This dissertation argues that, ultimately, the UN’s role may be to reflect, rather than to resolve, the differences of normative interpretation among its member states. It concludes that a more practical and prudent conception of impartiality – one which recognises that impartiality is necessarily and inextricably political – will be necessary if scholars and practitioners alike are to navigate the normative tensions inherent to a more assertive liberal international order.