Accountability of the United Nations - Essay Example

Accountability of the United Nations for Failing to Protect Human Rights in the International and Regional Conflicts Introduction International legalsystem has failed to provide adequate remedy to the international human rights issues and human rights violations in the middle east and the in the African countries. Among other international governance bodies and institutions, the role of the United Nations has been pivotal and central as well as it is one of the umbrella international institutions working for the global peace, security, stability and harmony among the member states and other nations. The severe violations in Somalia and the Kosovo war are two main cases where both human rights violations and the accountability of both the United Nations and the role of the related states are those complex challenges that make it necessary for critically assessing the role and negligence of the United Nations and its accountability relating to the gross violations of human rights are those issues that must be understood by keeping in view the jurisdiction of the international law and its different provisions relating to such cases in the international and regional conflicts. In the following parts of this paper, first the concept of accountability has been defined and discussed. In this part, various definitions of explanations by keeping in view the international law have been detailed. Subsequently, Along with this topic, the application of accountability concept to the United Nations has also been detailed. In this part, how the UN has failed to remain accountable for its activities and role in the conflict zones, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine war, have severely damaged the perception of the UN as an international institution providing and protecting the human rights globally. Before the conclusion part, two cases studies, Somalia and the Kosovo war, have been critically discussed and analysed as well. Accountability concept and international organizations Accountability is a highly controversial legal term and represents a legal dilemma.1 Accountability has not been properly defined and explained by the legal experts. Even if some legal authors have explained this concept with certain jurisdictions, others do not agree with it and remain critical of that definition and explanation. In this regard, it is important to further describe the term legal dilemma. For example, the international law and national legal law have different perspectives on certain issues as they have different stakeholders. More specifically, some countries legalise marijuana whereas the international law strong discourage and disallow such items as they are harmful for health. Under this situation, any marijuana case in the national jurisdiction can be allowed and permissible where the defendant would use the national legal cover for defending its case in court of law. And subsequently, if it is allowed in the national laws, the defendant will be able to claim immunity. However, if the same case is heard by any international court, such as international court of justice, it would not be possible for the defendant to use the same national law for defending its position in the case. And there are higher chances that the defendant would face legal action. This situation is tantamount to a legal dilemma as two laws have different standing on certain issues which give rise to the situation of legal dilemma. More clearly, if the international court found it convincing to allow the jurisdiction of national law and allow the defendants, this would raise questions about the verdict of the international court and more questions would be raised about the accountability of the international court. Gerhard Hefner has put light on the concept of accountability in the international law and has made the following comments that accountability “is a legal expression of neither the common law nor any other legal system... the absence of equivalent expressions is the best proof of the absence of any established meaning of accountability as a term of law”.2 This definition clearly exhibits the position of this term in the field of law. For example, in the first part of the description, the author equates the term as a legal expression, proving that this expression is not limited to any business or corporate activity but is also commonly found in the law institutions as well. In the subsequent part, the author has clearly expressed that the term has no similar word in the legal dictionary and that clearly validates that the term has no specific and unequivocal meaning in the field of the international law. In other words, it can be deduced that this perspective has clearly highlighted that the accountability cannot be determined through any established sense of meaning in which certain terms represent any specific meaning, sense, understanding and explanation. Accountability is associated with responsibility Some repercussions can be evaded if responsibility and accountability are used interchangeably.3 Responsibility and accountability are two terms having similar connotations for understanding an action and its subsequent consequences and both actions are exist in a particular situation. At the same time, it is logical and understandable that the responsibility and accountability go hand in hand. For example, responsibility is some sort of authority that is extended by an institution or personality to another person or institution. More clearly, it is like a mandate that is given to an institution. In other words, here the relationship between both authority provider and authority receiver is like the principal and an agent where the agent is authorised to act on behalf of the principal and carry out all those actions and decisions which have been extended to the agent. As a result, the agent has been given responsibility for the actions and decisions. Subsequently, if the actions do not bring the desired results, the agent would be held accountable for that. Consequently, it can be deduced that both responsibility brings accountability without responsibility there would be no accountability as well. As a result, responsibility provides the fundamental framework for establishing accountability mechanism for an international organization. With regard to the responsibility of international institutions at the international and national level, three types are mostly identified: (1) liability for illegal acts; (2) national or internal accountability; and (3) legal responsibility for violating transnational obligations.4 Based on this description, it is reasonable to deduce that responsibility has also been associated with the concept of liability which is mentioned in the first category. In other words, responsibility, liability and accountability are those legal terms which are used interchangeably and collectively they make a comprehensive sense of understanding. In this regard, it is important to mention that liability has been further classified within the context of illegal acts which in turn necessitates that it is highly essential that first illegality of action must be ascertained and proven which would subsequently provide grounds for liability relating to the illegal acts. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the author has synonymously used accountability, liability and responsibility so as to convey the message of uniform understanding and application of these terms in similar contexts. Similarly, this also proves that the author has attempted to make association between these words by keeping in view the national and international context. Based on this context and meaning of accountability, the role of the United Nations in peace operations has been critically assessed in the following parts. United Nations accountability in peace operations Difference between command and control is vital to understand and ascertain violations of human rights through providing peace keeping troops. Operational command refers to the orders issuing authority encompassing all dimensions of military operations along with administration whereas the operation control represents the authority for giving tasks to forces. 5 It is important to further discuss and elaborate both definitions. First, operational command is a strategic decision which provides a guideline, scope, mandate, actions and responsibilities of troops working on behalf of the United Nations. In this type of activity, the UN is required to ascertain and establish its mandate through either the United Nations Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly. In other words, both forums are legally capable and authorised to determine their extent for promoting peace keeping troops in the conflict zones. At the same time, at this level, number of troops, contributing nations, mission of troops are those factors that are included in the operational command. In contrast, the operational control is a tactical control that is generally made on ground where troops are stationed and the wing or station commander gives specific directions about subsequent tactical and operational stationing of the troops at particular locations and giving them instructions and orders relating to their mandate and their conduct while performing their duties. Violation of the human rights takes place when the UN holds command and control of troops and the troops have been identified as violating the mandate in their official capacity.6 The international institutions are legally bound by any obligations provided by the general rules of the international law.7 In contrast, the UN would not be held accountable for any gross human rights violations if the member states command the stationed forces.8 Moreover, state may be held accountable for complying with illegal decision of an international organization.9 Within this context, it is appropriate to highlight that it is function of ‘control’ that is fundamental for ascertaining responsibility in such cases.10 This situation raises number of questions about the accountability of the international institutions, such as the United Nations. First, to what extent an international institution or country will be accountable for involving in the process of commanding? What type of punishment or legal repercussions will be faced by such countries or institutions? At the same time, if command and control are separately owned by two international institutions, what type of legal action would be taken against them and what type of relief would be extended to the victims of such aggression in today times? These are certain questions that are still unanswered as the powerful international institutions and countries have always grossly violated the international law and the international human rights. At the same time, protection of human rights is also one of the fundamental mandates of the UN. At the end of the Second World War, warring nations agreed to set up an international institutions mandated to promote peace and stability besides protecting human rights. However, the UN mandate and the actual practice of the UN are two contrasting realities ever found in the history. For example, the UN is nothing but a puppet at the hands of the powerful nations of the world and human rights and protection of human lives are not important for countries like the United States of America and the United Kingdom as well because the UN is not fully independent of these powerful countries of the world. For example, the UN’s 60 budget is funded by the United States. All expenses, salaries, travel allowances and other fringe benefits given to the staff members of this international institution are mainly funded and financed by the United States. And the remaining portion is supported by the other member states. In other words, the UN and its Secretary-General are morally and financially are not independent and strong enough to go against the will and wish of the United States because it knows the ramifications and cost of such decisions. And this is proven by the major conflicts in the recent human rights where the international law and the human rights have been grossly violated by the United States and the United Kingdom. For example, Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, unequivocally stated that the Iraq occupation by the United States and the United Kingdom was not legal but illegal as they did not receive any mandate from the UN.11 This stance of UN Secretary-General raises a number of serious questions. First, who should be blamed for the killing of thousands of Iraqis that are still being killed inside Iraq? Second, Has the UN not failed to even live up to its own mandate which is to protect human rights as provided by the UN charter? Third, is the UN not accountable for its own breach of its mandate and charter when the US and its allied violated the UN charter and invaded Iraq? Fourth, to whom the UN is accountable for its negligence in the case of Iraq invasion? These are certain questions that have not been answered till this point of time. More importantly, still more Iraqis are being killed on daily basis. What has the UN done to protect and defend life inside Iraq and the same is being done in other conflict zones where the UN has mandate to defend and protect life in these areas. In this regard, it is important to highlight that how the UN would deal with the Iraq invasion issue when its 60 percent expenses are being provided by the invading questions. This is the most critical and difficult juncture for the UN as it finds itself toothless and helpless. This helplessness is also clearly visible in the more recent international situations in where different countries have acted unilaterally. For example, Russia through providing support to rebels in Ukraine and this proxy invasion was so intense that Ukraine was forced to surrender its territory to Russia in the form of Crimea. Even in this conflict, thousands of people have been died who have no direct association with the either party in the conflict. Here, the questions arise about the role of the UN and its accountability relating to restricting this invasion in both countries. Based on this analysis, it is reasonable to express that the UN itself is nothing but a handicapped international institution whose members are more powerful than the institution. Soon after the attacks of 9/11 on the United States of America, coalition forces led by the United States and mandated by the UN launched air raids and strikes on the terrorist hideouts inside Afghanistan. This attack was purely mandated by the UN but the operational control was given to the United States of America. After toppling the Taliban regime in Kabul, the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) was mandated to train the Afghan security forces, including Afghan army and Afghan police forces as well. In this regard, it is important to mention that this force was mainly led by NATO forces, which is also commanded by the United States. In other words, the United States was controlling the ground forces through the NATO forces. From 2005, the Afghan police force became an important force providing security services in the country. However, the NATO-trained and equipped Afghan police force was found involved in the gross human rights in which police-custody torture of civilian was mainly reported.12 This situation clearly hallmarks that the UN and the NATO have directly or indirectly have supported the gross human rights violations in Afghanistan. Being commanded by the UN and operationally controlled by the UN and the NATO forces, it is the responsibility of the UN to protect the human lives and human rights by strongly discouraging such acts of aggressions at the gross root level. Conclusion United Nations has miserably failed to promote and implement its charter’s main objectives. The United Nations has been mandated to protect human lives and protect human rights in its all member states through an appropriate policy and strategy. However, when this perspective is put into action, the reality reflects differently in both cases as the gross human rights violations have been reported in both cases. In case of Iraq, the United States, who provides 60 percent funds to the UN, bypassed the UN and launched strikes on Iraq and toppled the regime and subsequently invaded. Due to this invasion, many ordinary people lost their lives. At the same time, the case of Afghanistan is not much difference where the NATO-led and –trained Afghan police committed gross human rights violations in the country. In both cases, the role of the UN has raised a number of questions about its practical participation for protecting life in the conflict zones. If it has no capacity to even to generate its own funds, this makes very hard to understand how this international institution would be held accountable for gross human rights violations taking place in the mandated territories. At the same time, it is also relevant to highlight that the accountability is also attached with responsibility. In other words, it was the responsibility of the UN to protect lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine as well. However, the ground reality that the member states are more powerful than the UN and consequently this complicates the accountability mechanism. Bibliography Grenier, J.L. ‘Extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaty obligations to United Nations-mandated forces’, in A. Faite, J. And L. Grenier (eds.), Expert Meeting on Multinational Peace Operations: Applicability of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law to UN Mandated Forces (Geneva, ICRC 2004) Hafner, G. ‘Accountability of International Organizations’, 97 ASIL Proceedings (2003), ILA, ‘Accountability of International Organizations: Final Report of the Berlin Conference ‘, International Organizations Law Review 1 (2004) Ingravallo, V. ‘ Evolutions in the Law of International Organizations’, (The Netherlands; Hotei Publishing, 2015) Kroslak, D. ‘The Responsibility of Collective External Bystanders in Cases of Genocide: The French in Rwanda’, in T. Erskine (ed.), Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? : Collective Moral Agency and International Relations (New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) Maley, W. and Schmeidl, S. (eds.), Reconstructing Afghanistan: Civil-Military Experiences in Comparative Perspective, (New York, Routledge, 2015) MacAskill, E. and Border, J. ‘Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan’, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq Murphy, R. ‘International Humanitarian Law and Peace Support Operations: Bridging the Gap’, Journal of Conflict studies, 23 (2003) Schutter, O.D. ‘International Human Rights Law’, 2nd edn., (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2014). UN Civilian Police Handbook, UN Doc. UN/223/TH/CIP095 (1995) Zwanenburg, M. Accountability of Peace Support Operations (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005) Read More