Accountability of the UN Peace Support Operations Essay Example for Free

right of the UN Peace Support Operations EssayGlobal peace and security are among the United Nations marrow squash missions (Charter of the UN chap. 1, art. 1). At its founding in 1945, the UN aimed to serve as a global high command to move on the peace in a post-colonial, post-fascist world. The end of the Cold War has made the United Nations an ever much important partner and player in the varied tasks of conflict resolution and conflict avoidance.With the closing of the ideological gap between East and West many look to the peacekeeping apparatus of the United Nations as the best tool to deal with the lesser crises that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Morrison Blair 243). Thus, there is a belief that the United Nations has a pre-eminent role to play in global peace and security (Falk 627) by means of downstairstaking measures that fall under the category of preventive diplomacy peace-keeping, peace-making and peace building (Inoguchi 3). At the corre sponding m there are many critics of the way the UN has managed its security roles in the post-Cold War period. check appear moreMasters of Satire John Dryden and Jonathan Swift EssaySome see threatening trends in the strengthening of the powers of the UN Security Council since the Gulf War most agree that the Security Council has limits to its effectiveness as a global policeman. Both advocates and critics of the UN peacekeeping policies recognise that to be successful the peace support operations shoot to be sufficiently accountable the same way as any use of army forces in democratic nations (Newman 16). The purpose of this study is to explore what channels of accountability of peace support operations under the shelter of the UN exist and how sufficient they are.Toward this end we will scrutinize how accountability is established, who is accountable for a statute that cannot be carried out because of insufficient force play, examine the degree of transparency in establish ing responsibility of the parties involved, discuss the cases of peacekeepers mis make, and bugger off the conclusion. The Channels of Accountability of Peace Support Operations Such conceptions as preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and peace-building make the essence of common vision on global peace missions.This has called forth an globalist partnership comprising the military, civilian police, governments and NGOs, diplomatic services, mass communication media, and new(prenominal) establishments supporting democratisation and advancement processes (Newman 8). At present time decisions on the uses of military forces for peacekeeping operations can be taken in international establishments far from legislative authorities that democratic administrations relied on to ensure accountability.Sometimes the principles of decision-making in such supranational institutions run counter to democratic foundations (Ku Jacobson 24). In the c ase of peace support operations carried out under the protective covering of the UN the issue of accountability especially bring up when they deal with plenary powers and amenability for decisions on deploying military forces, incurring certain risks, choosing mission goals, and carry mandates into effect (Morrison Blair 254).Here it is of great grandeur to realise in what ways national governments may share responsibility with the UN and at the same time retain sufficient degree of accountability to their citizenry. The scholars designate such channels of accountability as international authorisation and national authorisation to use military forces, democratic civilian control of military personnel and operations, civilian responsibility to the military for the safety of deployed personnel, and responsibility to comply with norms governing the conduct of military and other international personnel in the field (Ku Jacobson 22).Among them the first one has been implemented su ccessfully, for the most part, due to major(ip) shift in international politics from nations operating on their own to nations which act under the auspices of international establishments. The other channels were covered by national authorities by means of judicial systems and appropriate domestic procedures inculcated in national constitutions, laws, legislative instruments and regulations as well as political and military traditions (Chesterman 99).At the national level legislative and executive authorities take decisions on the goals and targets of military missions, define the rules of conduct and involvement. Officials in charge of such decisions incur a full liability for adequacy of their works and are accountable to the citizens who elected them (Falk 634). But in case of peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the UN the issue of accountability is more complicated. It seems unrealisable to set responsibility at the international level in the same way.Hague and Genev a Conventions which are considered as the principal international laws of war provide precise directions on the conduct of military staff in the course of their peacekeeping missions and their responsibility toward the civilians and property in their zone of operations (Boulden 9). Hence, to evaluate the sufficiency of accountability of the UN peace support operations we have to discuss how these norms apply to peacekeeping troops deployed under the UN auspices and whether such norms are observed in practice.