Characteristics of the UN PKO


※上記の広告は60日以上更新のないWIKIに表示されています。更新することで広告が下部へ移動します。

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               On a occasion that  agreement is withdrawn or there are no agreement・・・                        (Parties concerned often agree because they think the UN PKO is  profitable)                               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 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