Protection of Civilians in UN operations

The protection of civilians has become prioritized by various actors in the international arena as civilians are increasingly bearing the brunt of the violence in armed conflicts. There is some lack of clarity pertaining to concepts relating to the protection of civilians particularly in UN operations. UN peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions are assuming a more active role in the protection of civilians (POC), while some mandates even prioritize the protection of civilians as their primary objectives. In regards to POC mandates authorized by Security Council, there is some ambiguity related to the terms of neutrality, impartiality, the extent to which UN troops can use force to protect civilians and whether or not the UN requires consent of the local parties. While the term impartiality entails that the UN forces should not favor any party or take sides in a conflict, UN forces are not required to be neutral in regards to perpetrators and victims especially when belligerents are committing atrocities against civilians.

Some of the misunderstanding surrounding core concepts in POC mandates may also result from overlooking the differences between peacekeeping with peace enforcement. While soldiers involved in peace enforcement mission authorized by the Security Council are still called peacekeepers, they are operating under rules of engagement that are very different from traditional peacekeeping mandates authorized under Chapter VI of the UN Charter that require obtaining consent from the parties involved in the conflict and exercising minimum use of force when implementing a POC mandate. By contrast, Chapter VII peace enforcement operations, which confront challenges that exceed peacekeeping do not require consent of main parties. Peace enforcement missions are authorized to engage in more aggressive military action when necessary to fulfill their protection of civilians mandate that may inevitable involve confrontation with armed groups that are violating the fundamental principles of IHL.

The ambiguity surrounding the extent to which the use of force is permitted in POC operations can also be attributed to a lack of consistency in enforcing the Chapter VII mandates. While Chapter VII authorizes UN troops to engage in proactive military actions, the articles are interpreted differently by troop contributors who are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge that Chapter VII allows for the use of force beyond self-defense. Varying interpretations regarding the use of force in POC mandates can be demonstrated by the different operations that have been authorized by the UN to address the situation in the DRC. For example, the Force Intervention Brigade under Resolution 2098 has been described as the “first ever” combat offensive brigade, whereas MONUSCO, the existing UN force that has consistently struggled to protect civilians was already authorized under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to use all necessary means to fulfill its mandate. The establishment of the Brigade reflects the different interpretations of the mandate among member state and troop contributing countries. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations has emphasized that the Intervention Brigade, which was successful in neutralizing the M23 militia can be distinguished from existing peacekeeping operations including MONUSCO by the willingness to pursue a greater degree of aggression. Major Patrick Cammeart, a former UN Force Divisional Commander of MONUC has questioned why MONUSCO has been unable or unwilling to fulfill its mandate to protect civilians and submitted that a mandate is only “as strong as the will of its leadership and the TCC’s to implement it”.

While it is early to assess the exact extent to which the Brigade will be successful, it represents a recent development in POC mandates and the challenges and ambiguities that remain in enforcing them. For example, while the Brigade demonstrates the potential benefits of having a proactive force that pursues danger where it actually occurs, legitimate concern has been expressed that adopting a more aggressive approach to protecting civilians places UN troops and humanitarian workers at greater risk for attack, and could even result in further reprisals against the civilian community.

In any event, the protection of civilians in armed conflicts is an emerging field in which many obstacles and ambiguities remain, especially in practice. Further exploring how to best enforce the protection of civilians on the ground is essential considering the repeated failure to prevent atrocities in the recent years and the widespread and systematic attacks civilians currently face in numerous armed conflicts. Different forces are involved in the protection of civilians, including diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, economic development and the use of force when necessary. UN operations should be considered in light of the other actors engaged in protecting civilians. The exact nature of how the different groups will interact and allocate their responsibilities will continue to evolve in the emerging field of civilian protection.

About the author
Lisa Coyle is an attorney with several years of experience in research and writing and representing victims of violence.