UN Peace Operations and Security Council Resolutions: A Tool for Measuring the Status of International Human Rights Law?
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410802600104 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 26/1, 79–107, 2008.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 79
Un PeaCe OPeRaTIOns anD seCURITY
COUnCIl ResOlUTIOns:
a TOOl fOR MeasURInG THe sTaTUs Of
InTeRnaTIOnal HUMan RIGHTs laW?
K M*
Abstract
is article argues that Securit y Council resolutions adopted in the context of UN peace
operations may be considered a useful instrument by which to assess political acceptance
of international human rights law. By analysing all ‘peace resolutions’ adopted since 1945,
four distinct periods may be discer ned which illustrate the development of the Council’s
approach to human r ights (1945–1989; 1990–1995; 1995–1998; and 1998-present).
Such analysis reveals, howe ver, that human rights are still accorded a lowe r status with
respect to other bodies of international law, and international humanitarian law in
particular. is is reected in a persi stent refusal of the Council to avail itself of explicit
legal human rights language and by avoiding reference s to international human rights
treaties. Human rights thus appear to con stitute a convenient smorgasbord à la carte
behind which States (the P5) may pick and choose according to political interests and shy
away from legal responsibilities. Nevertheless, it is suggested that UN ‘peace resolution s’
may indirectly, through various bodies, enhance the status of inte rnational human
rights law: the Inter national Court of Justice, the UN human rights treaty body syste m
and human rights components of U N peace operations.
1. INTRODUCTION
e role of the UN Security Council as global arbiter on matters related to international
peace and security vests the Council wit h incomparable politica l and legal clout. As
the sole international body w ith a monopoly to issue binding deci sions in this eld,
Security Council resolutions may be considered to reect the degree of acceptabilit y
* Doctoral C andidate, I rish Centre for Human Rights, National Unive rsity of Ireland, Ga lway. On
leave of absence from the Raoul Wallenberg I nstitute of Human Rights and Human itarian Law,
Lund University, Sweden.
Katarina M ånsson
80 Intersentia
and validity of a specic subject matter under its consideration. e mandatory
sanction reg ime imposed on South Africa f rom 1977 to 1994, for example, reected
a universal consensus on the impermissibil ity of Apartheid as a form of political
governance.1
e aim of this ar ticle is to ana lyse the extent to which human rights provisions
in Secu rity Council resolutions relating to peace operations ( hereinaer ‘peace
resolutions’) can ser ve as an indicator of UN member States’ acceptance of
international human r ights law. Peace operations a re of particular relevance, since
they are deemed, more than any other politic al ins trument, to have ‘shake[n] the
foundations of the remit of sovereignty and human rights’.2 By deploying peace
operations, tasked to implement i nternational political decisions directly w ithin a
domestic context, the Secur ity Council exercises a potentia l power of huma n rights
implementation un known to other international mechanisms. Accord ingly, human
rights provisions i n the Council’s peace resolutions may be considered a metronome
as to where States stand in the ba lance be tween one of the main pur poses of t he
UN (promoting and encouragi ng respect for human rights), on the one hand, and
one of its main principles (non-interference in domestic jurisdict ion of States), on
the other.3 If the General Comments of UN human rights treaty bodies constitute
the legal authoritative inter pretation of international human rights standards, the
Security Council’s peace resolutions can be construed as the political authoritative
interpretation of their standing at the international level. Acting simultaneously as the
international ‘judge, jur y and executioner’,4 the Cou ncil possesses an unpa ralleled,
and unchecke d, power to inuence the st atus of internat ional human r ights law. In
this capacity, it is argued that the Security Council may either reinforce or undermine
the universal ity of human rights.
Rather t han seeking to provide answers, this ar ticle thus endeavours to provoke
debate and discussion on the i mpact of Sec urity Counci l’s deliberations on human
rights issues in the context of U N peace operations. e purpose of such an e xercise
is t wo-fold: Fi rst, to ex plore the feasibil ity of Se curity Counci l resolutions as a tool
to measu re the p olitical status (read acceptance) of international human rig hts law
(and the de sirability of doi ng so) and, second, to enhance our understanding of the
impact of UN peace operations in protecting and promoting international human
rights law. It does not attempt to analyse w hether Securit y Council resolutions per
se comply with human rig hts standard s as peremptory norms of inter national law
1 UN Doc. S/RES/418, 4 November 1977, paras 2–5.
2 Donnelly, J., ‘e social constru ction of international hum an rights’, in: Dunne, T. and Whee ler, N.
(eds.), Human Rights in Global Pol itics, Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambrid ge, 1999, p. 91.
3 UN Charter Articl e 1(3); and Article 2(7) resp ectively.
4 White, N.D., e United Nation s System – Toward International Justice, Lynne R ienner Publishers,
Boulder, 2002, p. 94 .
To continue reading
Request your trial