AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series >> 2020 >> [2020] UNSWLawJlStuS 7

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Lilly, Francesca --- "Peacekeepers Or Perpetrators? Un Accountability In The Face Of International Immunities" [2020] UNSWLawJlStuS 7; (2020) UNSWLJ Student Series No 20-07


PEACEKEEPERS OR PERPETRATORS? UN ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE FACE OF INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES

FRANCESCA ANAND LILLY

I INTRODUCTION

Uniquely positioned in international law, the United Nations wields great power as the world’s foremost peacekeeper. The privileges and immunities derived from this power can clash with the significant responsibilities that accompany it, particularly when applied to personnel committing sexual offences on peacekeeping missions. Established to “maintain international peace and security,” “develop friendly relations” and “achieve international cooperation”[1] following the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN has been subjected to widespread critique, ranging from awed praise to mistrust and condemnation. Its decisions to act or refrain from acting in times of crisis and controversy have been both condemned and commended,[2] but the lack of tangible progress in ensuring accountability of perpetrators and preventing the sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) of people, primarily women and children, during peacekeeping missions has faced consistent criticism. Throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, the Central African Republic (CAR) and many more sites of UN peacekeeping missions, thousands of citizens have reported instances of SEA by the soldiers and other personnel deployed to their country for their protection.[3] These ultra vires offences beg the question of whether the extraterritoriality staff enjoy is truly appropriate.

As an organisation with recognised legal personality,[4] the UN enjoys privileges and immunities from domestic laws, which extend to UN staff. The UN and its personnel are thus able to avoid domestic taxes, immigration regulations and other legal duties imposed upon citizens.[5] Freedom from criminal prosecution is included in these exemptions, permitting copious instances of SEA to remain unpunished. Domestic and international justice systems are prohibited from prosecuting offenders, and additional protections arise for staff supplied by States, as the UN simultaneously sacrifices its avenues for punishing perpetrators through bilateral agreements with States. Responsibility for administering justice is handed to the troop-supplying State, which often fails to act, allowing perpetrators to continue masquerading as protectors, and leaving victims with neither justice nor compensation.

Realists suggest world politics is no more than an arena in which States squabble for advantages over one another, where genuine peace without competitions for power is unlikely, if not impossible.[6] In such a world the importance of the UN’s role of international peacekeeper is only heightened; when the UN allows the criminal behaviours of its personnel to go unpunished, the organisation’s essential role as global peacekeeper is shaken. Part I of this essay assesses the immunities and privileges enjoyed by the UN in their work, before Part II introduces the scope and nature of allegations of sexual crimes levelled against UN peacekeepers, and how international law addresses sexual offences. Part III will explore the UN’s relationships and agreements with troop-contributing States. This essay will compare responses to allegations of sexual offences to other offences UN staff have been accused of in Part IV, before assessing in the fifth and final part how the UN can prevent and punish SEA whilst maintaining member support and avoiding encroaching on State sovereignty.

II UN IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

In order to perform its functions independently of member States, the UN enjoys privileges and immunities that excuse it from adherence to domestic laws. Privileges involve exemptions from a State’s otherwise applicable substantive law, while immunities free the holder from the administrative, adjudicative or executive powers of a State.[7] The UN derives its immunities and privileges from its Charter; article 105 bestows upon the organisation “such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes,” and extends these to its representatives and officials.[8] Immunities and privileges are elaborated in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN,[9] and the right to prosecute personnel supplied by member States are signed away in Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the UN and the troop-supplying State.

Privileges and immunities prevent excessive control by States in which the UN is operating, thereby allowing the UN to function as an impartial, autonomous institution. State control over the UN is limited, with options beyond declaratory criticism essentially limited to withdrawing funding and membership.[10] At times, States may find frustration in their lack of influence over a body they have helped to create, particularly in instances of mismanagement and bias, such as those cited by the US in its withdrawal from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.[11] This is crucial to the functioning of the international institution, unbeholden to the whims and desires of global powers such as the United States and Russia, who may simply wish to impose their own values and interests on UN policy. Privileges and immunities prevent States from exacting control over the UN by charging taxes and prosecuting activities they do not support, as occurred in the arrest of UN arms expert Moncef Kartas in Tunisia.[12]

Privileges and immunities allow the UN, and its branches and personnel, to perform their duties without the hindrance of adhering to diverse laws in various States. The practicality of a UN special rapporteur avoiding a speeding ticket in Sydney or prosecution for political expression in Beijing is evident; the important work they do should not be hindered or overshadowed by legal battles, nor should it be subject to political control. However the necessity of privileges and immunities is tested when the organisation or its personnel commit serious, intentional offences, unrelated to their work and purposes. Sexual assault can only be seen as the antithesis of the objectives of peacekeeping missions. The UN’s objective of maintaining international peace can in no way be related to the exploitation of people, particularly women and children, in conflict-ridden countries. Despite declaring that “there is no immunity for sexual abuse,”[13] the UN allows perpetrators to evade any consequences by shielding staff from domestic prosecution and signing away prosecutorial rights in SOFAs and MOUs, and neglecting to take action or to waive privileges and immunities.[14] Even where independent review panels find UN staff have “failed to prevent or properly respond to allegations of harassment including sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power” within the organisation, perpetrators not only evade legal accountability, but are permitted to continue in their positions of power, as occurred with UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé, in a mockery of the “zero tolerance policy.”[15] The UN’s absolute immunity from prosecution shields personnel from accountability for atrocities they commit, thereby devaluing the UN’s status as a successful international peacekeeper, and causing significant decline in the faith those the UN purports to protect have in the organisation.

III SEXUAL CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Peacekeeping is a patriarchal activity, stemming from imperialist roots to the neo-colonial expressions of control exhibited today,[16] and so it is unsurprising that numerous accusations of sexual offences have been made against troops. Civilians have risen to become the dominant casualties of conflict, from 5% in World War II, to 90% in the Yugoslav Wars.[17] Sexual assault is used as a tool to express dominance and power over victims, their families and communities, due to perceptions of women, their bodies and reproductive roles and abilities as “guardians” of community honour.[18] Sexual crimes are prevalent not just in times of conflict, but in domestic and supposedly peaceful settings, with one in three women facing sexual assault during their life times.[19] Gender relations are heavily linked with other forms of identity, such as race, religion and sexuality. In the paternalistic and imperialist act of peacekeeping gendered violence is unfortunately common, where individual bodies are devalued and degraded as somehow lesser, thanks to their vulnerability, association with a military opponent, or various other reasons.[20]

Only over the last century have sexual offences been recognised in international law as more than merely the unavoidable consequences of war, but as punishable criminal acts.[21] Sexualised violence is used to create cohesion between members of armed groups, to prevent and control births and reproduction, to destroy family and community relations and to instil fear through oppressive patriarchal power structures.[22] Rape has been recognised as a crime in international law[23] and as torture and a “grave breach” of the Geneva Convention by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,[24] and as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.[25] Despite these significant legal strides and recognition, condemnation does not result in prosecution. Sexual offences continue to be perpetrated with impunity, as a common accompaniment to, and tool of, war and conflict.[26] Up to 257,000 women endured sexual violence in Sierra Leone’s eleven-year conflict ending in 2002, but only thirteen perpetrators were indicted for crimes against humanity including rape, forced prostitution, sexual slavery and forced pregnancy.[27] 60,000 accounts of SEA in the CAR were reported to various international organisations in the first ten months of 2015 alone (with an unknown number of unreported offences),[28] yet few peacekeepers face prosecution for such crimes, let alone conviction.[29] Perhaps part of the reason for this continuing sense of entitlement is the contradictory nature of criminalising acts of war. The oxymoronic regulation of violence enables punishment of the losing side following conflict, providing legal mechanisms for subjugating the vanquished. While it is undoubtedly necessary and just to hold perpetrators of all kinds of violence to account, in criminalising certain acts of war the international community perpetuates the myth that violence can be appropriate. Shooting unarmed civilians is undoubtedly more condemnable than engaging in confrontation with opposing soldiers, but in legalising some violence we permit the use of force that encourages a cycle of violence, evidenced by national conflicts and the force used by extra-territorial actors to quell them. In addition to condemning specific acts of violence in conflict, we should condemn and prevent the conflict itself, focusing on doing no harm rather than regulating what harm is permissible.

In a context of legalised violence, traditional traits of masculinity are praised in the military. This androcentric institution celebrates strength and cohesion in the military machine, rejecting traditionally feminine values of emotional expression and care, and thereby entrenching gender divides and countenancing the commission of gendered crimes. Seldom instigators of armed conflict, women nevertheless suffer extreme exploitation and degradation as a result. The commodification of female bodies means they are seen as items to steal and degrade from opposing men, or as prizes for those who can conquer them, the spoils of war.[30] Survivors of sexual offences in conflict report higher instances of post-traumatic stress symptoms than victims of non-sexual violence, and endured long-lasting impacts on mental and sexual health.[31] Militaries celebrate brute strength and emotional suppression while frowning upon gentleness and timidity, instilling a sense of elitism and superiority in its “warrior ethos.”[32] The masculinisation of the military, problematic in its own right, poses new threats when aggressive, hyper-masculine values instilled in soldiers clash with expectations of care and protection troops face in the powerful positions of peacekeepers.[33] Sexual assault is experienced by one in three women,[34] and committed by men from diverse backgrounds in varying contexts.[35] Normalising and ignoring sexual assault allows perpetrators to escape with impunity, and in the context of peacekeeping this is exacerbated by the status of offenders as purported protectors. The desire to exhibit power emphasised by militaries is compounded with gender dynamics and perceptions of female inferiority. Exacerbating this further are perceptions of racial “otherness” and inferiority that commonly permeate conflict, and the sense of imperial superiority that accompanies peacekeeping “saviours.”

IV RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEACEKEEPER ACCOUNTABILITY

Peacekeepers enjoy privileges and immunities as UN personnel, and further protection from internal repercussions from the UN is granted to troops supplied by member States through the organisation’s agreements with these States. SOFAs and MOUs constrain the UN’s accountability apparatuses by granting sole jurisdiction for redress to the states supplying the troops.[36] With no geographical jurisdiction, the UN has no citizens to comprise its own military, and thanks to reliance on member States for funding, it cannot afford to purchase its own troops. Dependence is therefore placed on member States to loan their own armies to work for the UN. Unwilling to relinquish sovereignty over their troops completely however, States are enticed to do so by SOFAs and MOUs that allow the contributing country to remain the sole authority over their troops.[37] Initially, these bilateral agreements were made upon assurances by troop-contributing States that they would prosecute soldiers for any offences committed whilst working as peacekeepers, however at present these promises are seldom proffered or pursued.[38] Having signed away their right to prosecute their staff, and thus ensure justice, the UN has few options for ensuring peacekeepers adhere to their role as protectors. Codes of conduct and verbal condemnation of behaviour are insufficient in preventing SEA; without the threat of serious repercussions, peacekeepers continue to act with impunity.

Access to justice is further limited by the removal of processes for redress, as survivors suffer further from the invisibility of accountability mechanisms. SOFAs usually involve investigation and prosecution, if any, in the perpetrator’s home country. Not only does this mean survivors’ emotional trauma is extended by the absence of a sense of justice and ability to participate in the processes of justice, but the removal of the forum from the location of the offence means increased challenges for evidence gathering and witness summoning.[39] Further limitations are created by political concerns, be they in regard to international implications or domestic concerns that prosecutions will undermine national support for contributions to the UN’s peacekeeping missions.[40] Despite having little accountability, international organisations are said to have limited influence, and the UN, reliant on the support of its member States, is no exception.[41] Under article 17 of the UN Charter, the organisation is funded by its member States, which have legal obligations to provide financial contributions.[42] Even at less than 1% of global military expenditures, the hefty annual budget of around $6.7 billion requires extensive donations from states elected by the General Assembly.[43] Reliant on this limited financial support and the voluntary provision of soldiers, the UN can only demand so much in SOFAs and MOUs before troop-supplying States refuse to cooperate. The UN must use the only tools for ensuring accountability that it has at its disposal: education and sending troops home.[44] However despite proclamations of “unyielding” efforts, the UN underutilises these methods to dangerous and deadly results.

V LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AFFORDED TO GENDERED OFFENCES

Misogyny and racism permeate levels of every community, and so it is unsurprising that the SEA of women of colour goes under-punished. Peacekeepers have been reported to commit many offences, such as drink driving, theft and contractual disputes,[45] however the gendered and colonial nature of SEA, and the multitude of offences, begs the question of whether these gendered crimes are afforded sufficient attention in punishment and prevention, in comparison to other offences. Peacekeepers have committed numerous non-sexual violent crimes: the murder of thirteen locals detained by peacekeepers in Boali, CAR was discovered in 2016 upon the exhumation of bodies buried two years prior.[46] Human Rights Watch confirmed the guilt of Congolese peacekeepers, but their home courts sentenced three offenders to just three years imprisonment.[47] Victim names were misspelled and convictions were for eleven, rather than thirteen murders.[48] Families of the victims were left with neither justice nor compensation, their only options to pursue foreign civil action at their own expense. When photos emerged in the 1990s of a Canadian private torturing a sixteen-year-old Somali boy to death, the peacekeeper was dismissed from the army and sentenced to five years imprisonment for manslaughter.[49] Two Belgian paratroopers received one month imprisonment and a £200 fine from a military court in 1997, after they “roasted” a young Somali boy over a fire during a mission.[50] Another Belgian soldier was jailed for just six months by a military court, after forcing a Somali boy to consume salt water, worms, and then his own vomit.[51] Nepalese peacekeepers caused the most extensive harm by introducing cholera to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. The UN denied responsibility for the deaths of at least 9,000 people and infection of 750,000, more,[52] despite evidence that the bacteria had been carried by peacekeepers from their home country undetected by insufficient UN health checks.[53] Moral responsibility was accepted after six years, in a “half-apology” by Ban Ki Moon, but legal accountability continues to be denied.[54]

The UN is evidently reluctant to take responsibility for any of its offences or pursue justice for its personnel, exploiting its privileges and immunities to avoid expensive, embarrassing or inconvenient legal repercussions and protect its reputation as the global protector of peace. SEA appear to be the most frequent peacekeeper offences, but are met with insufficient response. Some efforts to address peacekeepers offences have been made, from the Ten Rules: Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets to the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Sexual Violence in Conflict.[55] Nevertheless survivors are left with neither justice nor support as their cases are mismanaged, abandoned or lost as they crawl through convoluted complaints mechanisms.[56] Mismanaged investigations fail to produce sufficient evidence for prosecution by troop-supplying countries, and the UN hides behind contractual agreements rather than demanding appropriate action from States. State sovereignty is cited as a barrier to stricter agreements demanding more vigilant prosecution and appropriate punishment, but there is evident scope for negotiation and pressure to be exerted by the UN, as evidenced by Security Council Resolution 1373, requiring states to legislate against terrorist activities and ensure appropriate punishment.[57] If we compare the frenzy of the war on terror to the impunity of perpetrators of gendered violence, we can see the grip of the patriarchy and colonialism on international law is as firm as ever. The efforts of the UN are held back by the institutional inequalities that permeate the organisation, and the personal biases of not just staff members who commit the offences, but those at all layers of the UN, who investigate, prosecute, draft and make agreements and manage other aspects of the organisation.

Colonial sentiments are accentuated by misogyny in the actions of peacekeepers, and also in institutional and global responses. Media scrutiny is a successful tool in increasing accountability, however the widespread nature of sexual offences globally, accompanying victim blaming and the distancing and “othering” of women and people of colour means tales of SEA rarely make headlines, and certainly not for long. The mythical “perfect victim” obstructs justice for most survivors of sexual assault, with diverse traits and circumstances influencing perceptions of victim validity, from attractiveness to dress, acquaintance with the perpetrator to race.[58] Peacekeepers are propelled in their actions by a sense of entitlement. The Red Army’s rape of two million German women during the post-WWII occupation of Germany went unpunished, as the morality of liberating Europe from fascism was taken to entitle the Soviet soldiers to engage in whatever atrocities they chose.[59] Comparable liberty is felt by peacekeepers in their degradation of locals, driven by moral superiority derived from their work and feelings of power over inferior, wild peoples.[60] French mechanic Dadier Bourget explained his peacekeeping offences, saying, “Over there, the colonial spirit persists. The white man gets what he wants.”[61] Accountability is driven still further away by the lack of a global public, in both the juridical and in the sociological senses.[62] No legal institutions exist to define and grant the authority to act globally, and few people communicate globally, or even follow world news and politics closely, meaning international scandals often slip under the radar, particularly in countries not directly involved. International organisations enjoy both more and less freedom and accountability than States. They are accountable to member States, but individual States lack the means and the fora to control and punish the actions of an organisation.[63] In the global forum, where aspects of racism, colonialism and misogyny are underscored by the complexity of world politics, the SEA perpetrated by peacekeepers struggles to garner attention and find footing to reach the appropriate justice.

VI SOLUTIONS

Means to appropriately address SEA in peacekeeping are numerous and diverse, yet few have been pursued by the UN. The organisation has responded to the thousands of allegations[64] by emphasising its “zero tolerance policy” of sexual offences.[65] Codes of Conduct have been distributed to troops,[66] but thanks to agreements with troop-supplying states these are not legally binding. Sexual offences are common in domestic life, and even more so in conflict. When perpetrated by those in positions of power, whose role it is to protect civilians, the trust and respect necessary for the UN to fulfil its mission of securing international harmony is sorely tested. The UN calls its efforts to limit SEA by peacekeepers “unyielding,”[67] but in the androcentric arena of conflict and peacekeeping, Pecksniffian proclamations, insufficient investigations and non-binding codes are a mere Band-Aid over a gaping wound. Securing justice for past suffering and preventing future harm requires radical institutional change and significant modifications to State agreements, accompanied by extensive education of peacekeepers, UN staff and the public. Traditional gender perceptions at the core of sexual offences must be disrupted, and SOFAs must guarantee, not elude, legal justice. Substantive transformation and revolutionising of the immunities and privileges of the UN and its personnel is the key to preventing protectors from becoming perpetrators.[68]

Peacekeepers are separated from local communities by cultural, social, economic and linguistic barriers, and little education is provided on how to address and promote equality in this context. Focus on differences is unsurprising, considering the segregation of the blue helmets and civilians, and the unusual dynamics of power and protection.[69] Discursive constructions of locals are heavily and unnecessarily gendered; women are construed as both wild and sexualised, the objects of simultaneous lust and scorn, while men are ignorant and incapable of caring for “their” women.[70] Isolating women and their bodies from their humanity, and constructing social narratives of honour, power and inferiority around female bodies and their violation, encourages offender impunity.[71] In order to prevent SEA, greater education is necessary to combat colonial attitudes of peacekeepers, and limit the distancing of locals and protectors. In order to understand how to prevent sexual assault, we must become educated on the driving forces behind perpetrators, who, despite coming from wide-ranging backgrounds are typically all concerned with aligning with hyper-masculine stereotypes of strength and power, and commodify women as objects that accessorise male existence.[72] Education on the dynamics of gender and race relations, and promotion of equality and a feminist ethic of care that values individuals as autonomous and dignified beings will decrease SEA without affecting the UN’s absolute immunities and privileges. SEA are not exclusively crimes against women, however elements of power and gender evidently underlie these offences, being as they are perpetuated primarily by men, and primarily against women. Paradoxically, gender must be recognised and inequalities addressed and accommodated, yet a focus on female vulnerability and victimhood may serve to emphasise the inferiority of women.[73] A balance must be struck, with education that addresses gender imbalances and prioritises alleviating inequality, while simultaneously emphasising our innate equality, recognising the autonomy and dignity of women as individuals, rather than the vulnerability of an objectified collective. Lack of social, political and legal acknowledgement often proliferates the trauma experienced by survivors of sexual assault,[74] rendering community and military education and institutional reform essential in protecting survivors, as well as preventing offences. Foundational education to combat ingrained misconceptions of race and gender is essential in all societies, but even more so in the unique circumstances of a peacekeeping mission, where intense power dynamics distance parties. It is evident that the UN is failing to address the issue of entrenched bigotries, by failing to educate its staff and shielding itself behind the scapegoat of SOFAs.

Audre Lorde declared, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” urging the use of feminine instruments to break down patriarchal institutions.[75] Similarly China Mieville argues that expecting progressive change from within existing international institutions risks legitimising those structures that have proved so damaging.[76] Social and institutional structures built upon patriarchal and colonial foundations prevent progress by perpetuating sexist and racist behaviours and opinions, in both those in control, and survivors conditioned to maintain the status quo.[77] Comprehensive reorganisation and renewal is necessary to combat the structures and beliefs that permeate the UN, allowing sexual offenders to continue their crimes with impunity. Along with promoting the recognition of our equal humanity, it is important to emphasise the necessity to believe women. By remodelling reporting structures, we can put in place more prompt investigations and direct measures. Existing reporting mechanisms are convoluted and indirect,[78] and regularly end in lost and ignored cases in what one former investigator has called a “fundamentally flawed system.”[79] Insufficient evidence to prosecute is a common result of UN investigations, even where multiple charges are laid, with patterns of behaviour ignored by opening separate cases that are dismissed individually for lacking verification.[80] Reforming UN structures will enable the organisation to better address allegations of SEA, through more direct means without any sacrifice of privileges and immunities, and offer the visibility necessary to help survivors see justice done. If the UN takes a more active and diligent role in investigations and evidence finding, troop-supplying States will be compelled to take prosecutorial action, particularly with transparency and openness encouraging media and social accountability.

Further structural changes may include increasing representation of gender diversity in peacekeeping operations. Studies show that female police officers are not only less likely to use force or be accused of excessive force, but that their mere presence reduces the likelihood of other officers using force.[81] Increasing female representation in the police, military and civilian staff of peacekeeping missions is likely to have similar, and much needed, effects. The UN has recognised this verbally, but shirks responsibility for encouraging gender parity amongst the blue berets by leaving deployment decisions to member States.[82] Female peacekeepers have reported a lack of training for their work, criticising the focus on processes and procedures, and the dearth of preparation for understanding and assisting with the psychological impact of sexual violence on survivors.[83] Increasing female representation sheds light on these deficiencies, and more women in the UN, particularly in mid and senior level positions where disparity exists,[84] can assist in finding appropriate solutions for these important issues. However we must simultaneously quash expectations that women will instinctively understand how to respond to the needs of local women due to an innate feminine sense of care. Such myths only divide the sexes further, and allow deficiencies in training to leave the needs of local populations unmet. Amplifying the necessity for institutional change and education is the harassment female staff face within the UN, being forced from their jobs and threatened with termination should complaints be made.[85] All employees deserve a workplace free from harassment, and the UN is failing its female staff with inadequate protections and abuses of power. The organisation is free from recourse for mistreating staff thanks to its absolute immunities, but only detracts from its own ethos of equality and peace in doing so, and damages its work by disincentivising women from joining the UN. Extensive training of a more gender diverse military will increase efficiency and decrease violence toward “protected” communities. However, women must be incentivised to participate, something that will not occur with inadequate training, workplace sexual harassment and insecurity of jobs. While men typically dominate militaries, the UN could create gender quotas in its SOFAs to ensure a less androcentric military, and promote the deployment of typically “feminine” values of care and respect, much needed in the protective exercise of peacekeeping.

Punishment is not the only, nor the best solution for preventing SEA, but is a necessary process to secure justice for survivors, reprimand perpetrators and deter potential offenders. At present, the UN has few avenues for penalising criminal behaviour among peacekeepers, with options limited to investigating, supplying evidence to the troop-supplying State, and sending offenders home, as 600 Congolese troops were from the CAR in 2017.[86] Many instances of SEA go unreported, and poorly conducted investigations of those that are fail to push troop-supplying States to take action. Even when States do prosecute their own citizens seconded to the UN, any punishment, if given, is typically light and fails to reflect the severity of the offences. Access to justice in the courts has not been explicitly recognised as a right in international legislation, which tends to guarantee fair trials, due process[87] and the right to an effective remedy.[88] Nevertheless, it has been suggested that access to a legal forum for dispute resolution and justice is a fundamental human right, as the right to a fair trial is not just about fairness when a trial has been provided for under national or international law, but the right to have a trial in the first place.[89] The necessity of legal justice is heightened by the severity of the crime: SEA is recognised as a crime against humanity, a war crime, torture and genocide, among other offences, and is prohibited under numerous instruments of human rights.[90] Securing access to justice for complainants is necessary for the UN to fulfil its mandate of maintaining peace and promoting human rights, and may be done through amendments to SOFAs and MOUs. Although the UN originally demanded assurances that troop-supplying countries would prosecute their personnel for any offences committed during peacekeeping missions, presently, the UN allows member States to evade these promises, meaning State obligations to prosecute are insubstantial, and the UN’s right to prosecute is signed away.[91] States owe obligations to other States and the international community as a whole to not violate their international obligations,[92] which include the protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights. Failure to act with due diligence in the face of SEA is a violation of these obligations,[93] and as a champion of human rights the UN should hold States to account. By amending SOFAs and MOUs to ensure stricter obligations and make higher demands of States, the UN can both maintain its own immunities and privileges, and uphold its core ethos. Although States push for autonomous control of their troops, such sovereignty aligns poorly with the realities of our globalised community. Nevertheless, requesting States ensure violent offences do not go unpunished does not in itself detract from State sovereignty. If a State tolerates and perpetuates colonialist and misogynistic offences in peacekeeping missions, the UN should recognise that they are unfit to supply troops for the protection of vulnerable people in areas of conflict. Resources may be scarce, with the UN reliant on member support, but the organisation must cut its losses and refuse to deal with countries that cannot, or will not, promise not to commit sexual offences, and prosecute properly any that occur.[94] Even if States cannot commit to such promises, an independent court mechanism in peacekeeping countries could be established to combat SEA impartially, as promoted by Code Blue Campaign, an organisation dedicated to ending the impunity for peacekeeper perpetrators of SEA.[95] Comparisons with the hardline position taken against terrorism and the strict obligations imposed on States in combating it, highlight the underlying gender biases permeating the UN that must be eradicated for progress to be made, accountability to be secured and justice to be served.[96] Until the UN can ensure legal repercussions for perpetrators and justice for survivors, it should cease it’s shielding behind oppressive and patriarchal privileges and immunities. If survivors are prohibited from seeking compensation from the organisation that has placed perpetrators in their communities, and failed to thoroughly investigate and pursue prosecution, the organisation must ensure adequate avenues of redress to punish perpetrators and ensure justice is served.

Some acts of international organisations may cause harm that is unavoidable; the use of privileges and immunities may be necessitated in order to avoid numerous legal claims that detract time and money from the pursuit of the organisation’s mandate. But SEA are such ultra vires and violent crimes, that the use of privileges to shield perpetrators is inappropriate and inexcusable. Securing prosecution and legal justice is incredibly important for victim recovery, punishing offenders and deterring future crimes, but compensation is similarly necessary where an individual’s rights have been violated. Compensation is difficult to navigate, as the UN is unwilling to admit fault and waive its legal immunities, yet a lack of acknowledgement of and action to address failings is detrimental to the UN’s reputation, and the trust and respect that is necessary for civilians in conflict to feel for their protectors, and for the global community to place in the organisation. Liability for prosecution would drastically limit the circumstances in which UN peacekeeping missions could be undertaken. If compensation requests of $50,000 per illness and $100,000 per death following the UN’s introduction of cholera to Haiti were adhered to, the organisation would be bankrupted.[97] Legal liability is not the only way financial support can be provided, and the UN currently has in place a Trust Fund in Support of Victims of Sexual Abuse and Exploitation which provides medical, psychosocial and legal support to survivors.[98] The initiative is funded by member contributions and payments withheld from personnel accused of SEA, however these support systems have been found inadequate by survivors, particularly where financial support is necessitated by the birth of a child from SEA, for which typical domestic measures to ensure paternal child support contributions are supplied are inadequate.[99] A “victim-centred approach” is theoretically in place,[100] but more active engagement is evidently necessary to ensure survivors’ voices are heard and needs met, as survivors struggle to see visible changes.[101] The Trust Fund is a great step in providing services to sexually exploited and abused individuals, but greater autonomy than that stemming from controlled resources is necessary to empower survivors, and move away from protective stereotypes of women as vulnerable objects.[102] Financial support, while ideal, is certainly not the only form of support necessary. Peacekeepers lack adequate training for how to deal with the psychological impacts of SEA on survivors.[103] Care and counselling, despite being theoretical resources offered by the UN, are underused, with only one of eight survivors in a two-week period receiving medical and psychological assistance in a study from Bambari, CAR.[104]

VII CONCLUSION

As the UN rules the roost, maintaining peace through whatever means it sees fit, we must ponder quis custodiet ispos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? Peacekeepers venture on missions to prevent conflict and restore harmony, but when they themselves are immune from the justice system, there are few means available for recourse to justice. The UN shirks its responsibilities, losing cases and dismissing them for lack of evidence, and troop-supplying States exercise leniency in dealing with even the most violent offences. Confidence is being lost in peacekeeping, as local communities who should be protected now feel fear and loathing at the sight of the iconic blue berets.[105] UN reports suggest the number of offences is decreasing, but sexual crimes are notoriously underreported, and survivors have said they see no point in reporting after decades of impunity.[106] While the UN’s immunities and privileges are beneficial in keeping the organisation functional, the absolute immunity the UN enjoys is abused when staff members are able to commit serious crimes and human rights violations without repercussions. Present focus on shallow but drawn out investigations, rather than on survivor support and protection leaves existing victims without a sense of justice or security. This is highly detrimental to the reputation of an organisation whose ethos allegedly centres on peace, justice and human rights. The UN can provide better support and push for greater accountability by reforming its policies and SOFAs to reflect a feminist ethic of care. In promoting care and justice the organisation can fulfil its mandate and protect the vulnerable, and move away from existing structures that perpetuate patriarchal and colonialist divisions and abuses. SEA are far from being the only injustices women endure, and should not be treated as such.[107] However these gendered crimes are harmful and pervasive, and the UN should seize the opportunities presented to stamp out these toxic and damaging behaviours, for the benefit of survivors (of all genders), and the community at large.


[1] Charter of the United Nations art 1(1), (2) and (3).

[2] Jan Klabbers, ‘Contending Approaches to International Organisations: Between Functionalism and Constitutionalism’ in Jan Klabbers and Asa Wallendahl (ed) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organisations (Edward Elgar Publishing Limted, 2011) 3, 3.

[3] Jason Burke, ‘“They Killed My Children and Raped Me”: Sexual Violence Remains Rife in Congo’ The Guardian (online, 3 November 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/02/they-killed-my-children-and-raped-me-horrific-violence-remains-rife-in-democratic-republic-of-the-congo>; Al Jazeera, ‘UN Peacekeepers Leave Haiti: What is their Legacy?’ Al Jazeera (online, 7 October 2017) <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/peacekeepers-leave-haiti-legacy-171004144515853.html>; Sandra Laville, ‘UN Inquiry into CAR Abuse Claims Identifies 41 Troops as Suspects’ The Guardian (online, 6 December 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/05/un-inquiry-into-car-abuse-claims-identifies-41-troops-as-suspects>.

[4] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, opened for signature 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS 15 (entered into force 14 December 1946) art 1.

[5] August Reinsch, ‘Privileges and Immunities’ in Jan Klabbers and Asa Wallendahl (ed) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organisations (Edward Elgar Publishing Limted, 2011) 132, 133.

[6] John J Mearsheimer, ‘The False Promises of International Institutions’ (1995) 19(3) International Security 5, 9.

[7] August Reinsch, ‘Privileges and Immunities’ in Jan Klabbers and Asa Wallendahl (ed) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organisations (Edward Elgar Publishing Limted, 2011) 132, 133.

[8] Charter of the United Nations, art 105(1)-(2).

[9] Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, opened for signature 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS 15 (entered into force 14 December 1946)

[10] Jan Klabbers, ‘Contending Approaches to International Organisations: Between Functionalism and Constitutionalism’ in Jan Klabbers and Asa Wallendahl (ed) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organisations (Edward Elgar Publishing Limted, 2011) 3, 11.

[11] ABC, ‘UNESCO: US, Israel Withdraw from UN Cultural Organisation Citing Anti-Israel Bias’ ABC (online, 13 October 2017) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-13/us-withdraws-from-unesco-due-to-anti-israel-bias/9045362>.

[12] Patrick Wintour, ‘UN Expert on Libya Weapons “Illegally Jailed in Tunisia”’ The Guardian (online, 30 April 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/30/un-expert-on-libya-weapons-illegally-jailed-in-tunisia>.

[13] ‘Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General’ United Nations (online, 14 February 2018) <https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/db180214.doc.htm>.

[14] Code Blue, ‘Primer: Privileges and Immunities’ (Web Page) <http://www.codebluecampaign.com/primer-privileges-and-immunities-of-the-united-nations> .

[15] UNAIDS Independent Expert Panel, Report on the Work of the Independent Expert Panel on Prevention of and Response to Harassment, Including Sexual Harassment; Bullying and Abuse of Power at UNAIDS Secretariat, Agenda Item 3.1, UN Doc UNAIDS/PCB (43)/18.21 (11 December 2018) [1].

[16] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 216.

[17] Mike O’Connor, ‘Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: The Least Condemned of War Crimes’ (2014) 21(3) Journal of Law and Medicine 528, 528.

[18] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 225-226.

[19] World Health Organisation, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and South African Medical Research Council, Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence, WHO Doc 978 92 4 156462 5 (2013) [20].

[20] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 220.

[21] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 131.

[22] Deanna Simpson, ‘Sierra Leone’ Women’s Media Centre (online, 7 February 2013) <http://www.womensmediacenter.com/women-under-siege/conflicts/sierra-leone> .

[23] Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Sentencing Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Case No IT-94-1-T, 14 July 1997).

[24] Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Case No IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998) [494]-[496].

[25] Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Trial Chamber I, Case No ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998) [732]-[734].

[26] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 620.

[27] Mike O’Connor, ‘Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: The Least Condemned of War Crimes’ (2014) 21(3) Journal of Law and Medicine 528, 533.

[28] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 617.

[29] Ruairi Casey, ‘UN Pledges to Eradicate Peacekeeper Sex Abuse’ Al Jazeera (online, 30 September 2019) <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/pledges-eradicate-peacekeeper-sex-abuse-180929155904085.html>.

[30] Grant Niemann, ‘The Sexual Assault of Women During Armed Conflict or Civil Disturbance’ (2006) 30(1) Criminal Law Journal 8, 15.

[31] Philipp Kuwert, Heide Glaesmer, Svenja Eichhorn, Elena Grundke,; Robert Pietrzak, Harald Freyberger and Thomas Klauer, ‘Long-Term Effects of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Compared with Non-Sexual War Trauma in Female World War II Survivors: A Matched Pairs Study’ (2014) 43(6) Archives of Sexual Behaviour 1059, 1063.

[32] Rachel Paskell, Jeremy Gauntlett-Gilbert and Megan Wilkinson-Tough, ‘Military Culture: Masculine Norms, Perceived Personal Control, Autonomous Motivation, and Coping Differences Between Injured Male Military Personnel and Civilian Sportsmen’ (2019) 9(2) Military Behavioural Health 161, 161.

[33] Dyan Mazurana, ‘Men, Militarism and & UN Peacekeeping: A Gendered Analysis’ (2004) 2(3) Politics & Gender 414, 416.

[34] World Health Organisation, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and South African Medical Research Council, Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence, WHO Doc 978 92 4 156462 5 (2013) [20].

[35] Heather Murphy, ‘What Experts Know About Men Who Rape’ The New York Times (online, 30 October 2017) <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/health/men-rape-sexual-assault.html>.

[36] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 611.

[37] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 636.

[38] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 154-155.

[39] Rosa Freedman, ‘UNaccountable: A New Approach to Peacekeepers and Sexual Abuse’ (2018) 29(3) The European Journal of International Law 961, 969.

[40] Rosa Freedman, ‘UNaccountable: A New Approach to Peacekeepers and Sexual Abuse’ (2018) 29(3) The European Journal of International Law 961, 969.

[41] Ruth W Grant and Robert O Keohane, ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’ (2005) 99(1) American Political Science Review 29, 29.

[42] Charter of the United Nations art 17.

[43] ‘How We Are Funded’ United Nations Peacekeeping (Web Page, 2018) <https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/how-we-are-funded>.

[44] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 627.

[45] Bruce Rashkow, ‘United Nations Peacekeeping: Strengthening Accountability for Injuries to Third Parties’ American Bar Association (online, 5 June 2018) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/international_law/publications/international_law_news/2018/winter/united-nations-peacekeeping/>.

[46] Human Rights Watch, ‘Central African Republic: Murder by Peacekeepers’ Human Rights Watch (online, 7 June 2016) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/07/central-african-republic-murder-peacekeepers>.

[47] Lewis Mudge, ‘“In the Central African Republic, AU Peacekeepers Carried Out an Egregious Crime”’ Human Rights Watch (online, 10 August 2018) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/10/central-african-republic-au-peacekeepers-carried-out-egregious-crime>.

[48] Human Rights Watch, ‘Central African Republic: Short Sentences Cheat Victims’ Human Rights Watch (online, 7 August 2018) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/07/central-african-republic-short-sentences-cheat-victims>.

[49] Clyde H Farnsworth, ‘Torture by Army Peacekeepers in Somalia Shocks Canada’ New York Times (online, 27 November 1994) <https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/27/world/torture-by-army-peacekeepers-in-somalia-shocks-canada.html>.

[50] Francis Elliott and Ruth Elkins, ‘UN Shame Over Sex Scandal’ The Independent (online, 7 January 2007) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-shame-over-sex-scandal-431121.html>.

[51] Jennifer Gould, ‘Peacekeeping Attrocities’ The Village Voice (24 June 1997) 38; BBC News, ‘Belgian UN Soldier Jailed Over Incident in Somalia’ BBC News (online, 7 May 1998) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/89321.stm> .

[52] Mara Pillinger, Ian Hurd and Michael N Burnett, ‘How to Get Away With Cholera: The UN, Haiti and International Law’ (2016) 14(1) Perspectives on Politics 70, 70

[53] Mara Pillinger, Ian Hurd and Michael N Burnett, ‘How to Get Away With Cholera: The UN, Haiti and International Law’ (2016) 14(1) Perspectives on Politics 70, 72.

[54] Ed Pilkington and Ben Quinn, ‘UN Admits for First Time that Peacekeepers Brought Cholera to Haiti’ The Guardian (online, 2 December 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/dec/01/haiti-cholera-outbreak-stain-on-reputation-un-says>.

[55] Mike O’Connor, ‘Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict: The Least Condemned of War Crimes’ (2014) 21(3) Journal of Law and Medicine 528, 536.

[56] Vice, ‘Peacekeepers Turned Perpetrators’ (YouTube, 27 July 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfoCHEIfDQ&feature=youtu.be>.

[57] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 160; Resolution 1373, SC Res 1373, UN SCOR, 4385th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001, adopted 28 September 2001).

[58] Audrey K. Miller, Keith D. Markman, Amanda M. Amacker, and Tasha A. Menaker, ‘Expressed Sexual Assault Legal Context and Victim Culpability Attributions’ (2012) 27(6) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1023, 1024.

[59] Antony Beevor, ‘They Raped Every German Female From Eight to 80’ The Guardian (online, 1 May 2002) <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11>.

[60] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 226.

[61] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 144.

[62] Ruth W Grant and Robert O Keohane, ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’ (2005) 99(1) The American Political Science Review 29, 34.

[63] Ruth W Grant and Robert O Keohane, ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’ (2005) 99(1) American Political Science Review 29, 29-30.

[64] Azad Essa, ‘Why Do Some Peacekeepers Rape?’ Al Jazeera (online, 5 August 2017) <https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/07/peacekeepers-rape-170730075455216.html>.

[65] Secretary-General’s Bulletin – Special Measures for Protection From Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, UN Doc ST/SGB/2003/13 (9 October 2003).

[66] UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Ten Rules: Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets (1998).

[67] UN Affairs, ‘The UN’s Unyielding Effort to Tackle Sexual Abuse and Exploitation: Our Quarterly Update’ UN News (online, 30 May 2019) <https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/05/1039491>.

[68] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215.

[69] Kathleen M Jennings, ‘Conditional Protection? Sex, Gender, and Discourse in UN Peacekeeping’ (2019) 63(1) International Studies Quarterly 30, 30.

[70] Kathleen M Jennings, ‘Conditional Protection? Sex, Gender, and Discourse in UN Peacekeeping’ (2019) 63(1) International Studies Quarterly 30, 33.

[71] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 226.

[72] Heather Murphy, ‘What Experts Know About Men Who Rape’ The New York Times (online, 30 October 2017) <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/health/men-rape-sexual-assault.html>.

[73] Dianne Otto, ‘Power and Danger: Feminist Engagement with International Law Through the UN Security Council’ (2010) 32(1) The Australian Feminist Law Journal 97, 119.

[74] Philipp Kuwert, Heide Glaesmer, Svenja Eichhorn, Elena Grundke,; Robert Pietrzak, Harald Freyberger and Thomas Klauer, ‘Long-Term Effects of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Compared with Non-Sexual War Trauma in Female World War II Survivors: A Matched Pairs Study’ (2014) 43(6) Archives of Sexual Behaviour 1059, 1063.

[75] Audre Lorde, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House (Penguin Random House, 2018).

[76] Dianne Otto, ‘Power and Danger: Feminist Engagement with International Law Through the UN Security Council’ (2010) 32(1) The Australian Feminist Law Journal 97, 98.

[77] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 224.

[78] United Nations, ‘Sexual Exploitation and Abuse: Management of Reports and Allegations Involving UN Personnel in Peacekeeping and Special Political Missions’ United Nations Conduct in UN Field Missions (Web Page) <https://conduct.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/infographic_v10-revisedoct2017-v2_0.pdf>.

[79] Vice, ‘Peacekeepers Turned Perpetrators’ (YouTube, 27 July 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfoCHEIfDQ&feature=youtu.be> 5:23.

[80] Vice, ‘Peacekeepers Turned Perpetrators’ (YouTube, 27 July 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfoCHEIfDQ&feature=youtu.be> 6:19.

[81] Ivonne Roman, ‘How Policewomen Make Communities Safer’ (TED, April 2019) <https://www.ted.com/talks/ivonne_roman_how_policewomen_make_communities_safer?language=en#t-155941> 5:15.

[82] United Nations Peacekeeping, ‘Women in Peacekeeping’ United Nations Peacekeeping (Web Page) <https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/women-peacekeeping>.

[83] Georgina Holmes, ‘Female Military Peacekeepers Left Feeling Overwhelmed After Inadequate Training’ The Conversation (online, 29 May 2019) <http://theconversation.com/female-military-peacekeepers-left-feeling-overwhelmed-after-inadequate-training-114887> .

[84] United Nations Peacekeeping, ‘Women in Peacekeeping’ United Nations Peacekeeping (Web Page) <https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/women-peacekeeping>.

[85] BBC News, ‘The Women Keeping Peace... In the Deadliest Place’ BBC News (online, 18 November 2018) <https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-46156627>.

[86] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 627; ‘UN to Send Congo Peacekeepers Home Over Sex Abuse Claims’ France 24 (online, 20 June 2017) <https://www.france24.com/en/20170620-central-african-republic-dr-congo-withdraw-un-peacekeepers-sex-abuse-minusca>.

[87] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) art 11; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 14; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953) arts 6 and 7.

[88] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953) art 13.

[89] August Reinsch, ‘Privileges and Immunities’ in Jan Klabbers and Asa Wallendahl (ed) Research Handbook on the Law of International Organisations (Edward Elgar Publishing Limted, 2011) 132, 141.

[90] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN GAOR, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948) art 5; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 September 1953) art 3.

[91] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 154-155.

[92] Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, GA Res 56/83, 53rd sess, UN Doc A/RES/56/83 (28 January 2002, adopted 12 December 2001) art 33.

[93] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 630-631.

[94] Sophia Genovese, ‘Prosecuting UN Peacekeepers for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in the Central African Republic’ (2018) 43(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 609, 636.

[95] Code Blue, ‘Our Solutions’ (Web Page) <http://www.codebluecampaign.com/our-solutions> .

[96] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 160; Resolution 1373, SC Res 1373, UN SCOR, 4385th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001, adopted 28 September 2001).

[97] Mara Pillinger, Ian Hurd and Michael N Burnett, ‘How to Get Away With Cholera: The UN, Haiti and International Law’ (2016) 14(1) Perspectives on Politics 70, 80.

[98] ‘Trust Fund in Support of Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse’ United Nations (Web Page) <https://www.un.org/preventing-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse/content/trust-fund>.

[99] Muna Ndulo, ‘The United Nations Response to the Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Women and Girls by Peacekeepers During Peacekeeping Missions’ (2009) 27(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 127, 158.

[100] United Nations ‘Righting a Wrong: UN Fund Helps Thousands of Sex Abuse Survivors Rebuild Their Lives’ UN News (online, 21 June 2019) <https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/06/1041051>.

[101] Code Blue, ‘Is Antonio Guterres’ “New Approach” to UN Sexual Abuse Just a Repackaged Version of the Old Failed Approach’ Code Blue (online, 16 October 2018) <http://www.codebluecampaign.com/analysis/2018/10/16/old-approach> .

[102] Dianne Otto, ‘Power and Danger: Feminist Engagement with International Law Through the UN Security Council’ (2010) 32(1) The Australian Feminist Law Journal 97, 116 and 119.

[103] Georgina Holmes, ‘Female Military Peacekeepers Left Feeling Overwhelmed After Inadequate Training’ The Conversation (online, 29 May 2019) <http://theconversation.com/female-military-peacekeepers-left-feeling-overwhelmed-after-inadequate-training-114887> .

[104] Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli and Augusto Leal Rinaldi, ‘Preventing “Protectors to Become Perpetrators”: Can the United Nations Stop Sexual Abuse and Exploitation by UN Peacekeepers?’ (2017) 6(11) Monções 215, 217.

[105] Vice, ‘Peacekeepers Turned Perpetrators’ (YouTube, 27 July 2018) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfoCHEIfDQ&feature=youtu.be>.

[106] Al Jazeera English, ‘Haiti By Force | Fault Lines’ (YouTube, 22 March 2017) <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml0I4LolBjI>.

[107] Dianne Otto, ‘Power and Danger: Feminist Engagement with International Law Through the UN Security Council’ (2010) 32(1) The Australian Feminist Law Journal 97, 102.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2020/7.html