[Characteristics of the UN PKO]の変更点 - 047y321e @ ウィキ

Characteristics of the UN PKO

「Characteristics of the UN PKO」の編集履歴（バックアップ）一覧はこちら

「Characteristics of the UN PKO」(2008/03/30 (日) 13:22:20) の最新版変更点

追加された行は緑色になります。

削除された行は赤色になります。

1.Characteristics of the UN PKO(p40～) There are three characteristics 1) Agreement 2)Nonpartisanship 3)Restrain of the use of armed force (1) Agreement(p41～) Agreement consist of ⅰ) core of agreement　ⅱ) quality of agreement ⅰ) core of agreement Core of agreement classify a) parties concerned conflict b) core menbers of the UN　 a) parties concerned conflict ex. Legal government and Resistance Somalia Conflict ( At least there are 8 parties and a lot of independent militia corps) 　　Question: Sould the UN PKO obtain the agreement by which the parties involved? Does the UN PKO have to obtain the agreement by all parties involved? b) core menbers of the UN especially mean permanent menbers (of the Security Council) ex.USA・・・1982,French plan was refused by USA. It asked the UN PKO to commit to observe withdrawal of PLO from Beirut. Point: The UN PKO is highly depend on core menbers because they offer funds and unit. That's why, no procurement exclude approval. ⅱ) quality of agreement 　　　　　　Sincere agreement ←－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－→　Unreliable agreement Parties concerned have strong desire. By extortion or pressure. On a occasion that agreement is withdrawn or there are no agreement・・・　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(Parties concerned often agree because they think the UN PKO is profitable) The UN PKO act ・・・ 1) convert into semi-compulsory measure 2) revise objective 3) does not take action 4) Withdrawal 1) means"Mission creep"･･･carry out their mission. （機能逸脱）Unintentional expansion of mandate 2) means"Mission クリンジ・・・ limit their mission.(機能萎縮）Unintentionalshrinkof mandate (2) Nonpartisanship(p48～) 　　Nonpartisanship and objectivity distinguish the UN PKO from 強制行動　(forced action or PKO?) 強制行動・・・Parties involved are classified by the side of casualty or the side of international criminals. The UN PKO･･･ They neither blame only one side nor sympathetic towards only one side. Point: Nonpartisanship are always in crisis!! 　ⅰ) Sould we form a judgement from the which way? Should we maintain nonpartisanship absolutely ? ? 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 ⅱ)Even if the UN PKO is neutrality, how parties concerned who suffer disadvantages think it because usually the UN PKO give rise to changes in power ballance. ⅲ) How's a sense of values whose parties concerned ? Even if it supports to refugee camps, there are possibility to be seen a contribution for their enemy. If the UN PKO lose their nonpartisanship・・・　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　They assume a risk　to be seen enemy for some parties concerned.　　　　　 ex. Air raid to Serbian in Bosunia , approval of the caretaker president for one side in Somalia. A dilenma of partisanship(Neutrality or Reliability) ex. Experience in Somalia The UN PKO approve アリ･マハディ for the caretaker president → Retaliate from General アイディード → They bacame to aim to capture General (means a failure of Peace Keeping) However, if the UN PKO had not aimed to capture General, he would have seemed them as week-kneed,and added harder retakiate attack to collapse a peace process. (3) Restrain of the use of armed force(p53～) Interpretation ⅰ) the minimum necessary use of armed force ⅱ) within the ambit of their self-defence Criteria of restrain of the use of armed force has an influence on a principle of agreement and nonpartisanship . On the case that UN PKO could obtain agreement and cooperation from parties concerned , criteria was not important at all. However, on the case that UN PKO could not obtain agreement and cooperation from parties concerned, criteria was important.

1.Characteristics of the UN PKO(p40～) There are three characteristics 1) Agreement 2)Nonpartisanship 3)Restrain of the use of armed force (1) Agreement(p41～) Agreement consist of ⅰ) core of agreement　ⅱ) quality of agreement ⅰ) core of agreement Core of agreement classify a) parties concerned conflict b) core menbers of the UN　 a) parties concerned conflict ex. Legal government and Resistance Somalia Conflict ( At least there are 8 parties and a lot of independent militia corps) 　　Question: Sould the UN PKO obtain the agreement by which the parties involved? Does the UN PKO have to obtain the agreement by all parties involved? b) core menbers of the UN especially mean permanent menbers (of the Security Council) ex.USA・・・1982,French plan was refused by USA. It asked the UN PKO to commit to observe withdrawal of PLO from Beirut. Point: The UN PKO is highly depend on core menbers because they offer funds and unit. That's why, no procurement exclude approval. ⅱ) quality of agreement 　　　　　　Sincere agreement ←－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－→　Unreliable agreement Parties concerned have strong desire. By extortion or pressure. On a occasion that agreement is withdrawn or there are no agreement・・・　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(Parties concerned often agree because they think the UN PKO is profitable) The UN PKO act ・・・ 1) convert into semi-compulsory measure 2) revise objective 3) does not take action 4) Withdrawal 1) means"Mission creep"･･･carry out their mission. （機能逸脱）Unintentional expansion of mandate 2) means"Mission クリンジ・・・ limit their mission.(機能萎縮）Unintentionalshrinkof mandate (2) Nonpartisanship(p48～) 　　Nonpartisanship and objectivity distinguish the UN PKO from 強制行動　(forced action or PKO?) 強制行動・・・Parties involved are classified by the side of casualty or the side of international criminals. The UN PKO･･･ They neither blame only one side nor sympathetic towards only one side. Point: Nonpartisanship are always in crisis!! 　ⅰ) Sould we form a judgement from the which way? Should we maintain nonpartisanship absolutely ? ? 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 ⅱ)Even if the UN PKO is neutrality, how parties concerned who suffer disadvantages think it because usually the UN PKO give rise to changes in power ballance. ⅲ) How's a sense of values whose parties concerned ? Even if it supports to refugee camps, there are possibility to be seen a contribution for their enemy. If the UN PKO lose their nonpartisanship・・・　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　They assume a risk　to be seen enemy for some parties concerned.　　　　　 ex. Air raid to Serbian in Bosunia , approval of the caretaker president for one side in Somalia. A dilemma of partisanship(Neutrality or Reliability) ex. Experience in Somalia The UN PKO approve アリ･マハディ for the caretaker president → Retaliate from General アイディード → They bacame to aim to capture General (means a failure of Peace Keeping) However, if the UN PKO had not aimed to capture General, he would have seemed them as week-kneed,and added harder retakiate attack to collapse a peace process. (3) Restrain of the use of armed force(p53～) Interpretation ⅰ) the minimum necessary use of armed force ⅱ) within the ambit of their self-defence Criteria of restrain of the use of armed force has an influence on a principle of agreement and nonpartisanship . On the case that UN PKO could obtain agreement and cooperation from parties concerned , criteria was not important at all. However, on the case that UN PKO could not obtain agreement and cooperation from parties concerned, criteria was important. Why? : Because the UN PKO are expected to exclude interference with their mission. However it means that provoke critical parties antipathy , and that's why the UN PKO face a dilemma of risk or reliability. Flexible restrain → Increase the risk and possibility to be a part of conflict in themselves. Strict restrain 　 → Decrease their reliability for observer of a peace process. ex. "patient diplomacy" in Cambodia

表示オプション

横に並べて表示：

変化行の前後のみ表示：

047y321e @ ウィキ

メニュー

リンク

他のサービス

更新履歴

Characteristics of the UN PKO

「Characteristics of the UN PKO」(2008/03/30 (日) 13:22:20) の最新版変更点