The European Union’s Peace Missions in the United Nations Security Collective System (original) (raw)
Related papers
in Aurel Sari and Ramses A. Wessel (eds.), Human Rights in EU Crisis Management Operations: A Duty to Respect and to Protect?, Cleer Working Paper Series 2012/6, Asser Institute, pp. 21-37.
This paper focuses on the applicability of general international law principles and instruments to European Union (EU) peace missions (also known as crisis management operations). First, the paper shall address the legal framework applicable to EU peace missions, including general principles and instruments of international human rights and humanitarian law. Subsequently, the focus will shift to difficulties which arise in this regard, before providing some concluding remarks. Evidently, in view of the nature of peace missions, the most relevant general principles and instruments applicable are those pertaining to international human rights and international humanitarian law. Although not discussed here, general principles applying to internally displaced persons (IDPs) are also relevant.
The emerging partnership between the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) in crisis management is clearly a desirable development. EU can contribute to the UN by providing vital capabilities, especially in rapid redeployment while the UN can confer legality and legitimacy to EU operation thereby enabling the Union to become fairly a global actor, not just economically but also politically. The EU’s commitment to UN peacekeeping mission is truly one of foundations of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The study argues that the EU preference for participating in UN-mandated peacekeeping missions to UN-led operations impedes rather than enhances the EU-UN cooperation in conflict management.
The development of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), military and civilian missions undertaken by the EU in the framework of this policy, and the adoption of the European Security Strategy provides a new perspective in the development of the relationship between the EU and the UN. Crisis management is becoming a priority in the relationship between the two organizations, with emphasis on the complementarity of the EU's eff orts in crisis management and the traditional role of the UN in this area. In this paper the institutionalization of relationship between the EU and the UN will be fi rst analyzed, and than their cooperation in military and civilian crisis management operations. The authors conclude that cooperation between the EU and the UN off ers multiple benefi ts for both organizations. On the one hand, the UN gives the legality and the legitimacy of EU action in the fi eld of crisis management, while, on the other hand, the possibility that the United Nations plays a key role in the "exit strategy" of the EU increases the importance of this organization.
Global Affairs, 2018
A stated aim in the EU Global Strategy is for the EU to work with partners in addressing crises across the world. This article analyses such potential in the area of crisis response and peacebuilding, with an emphasis on the EU’s interaction with the UN and OSCE. It starts off comparatively by examining where the EU, UN and OSCE add value in crisis response and peacebuilding and reach complementarities. It shows that deployments differ across geographical locations and that the mandates of these organizations vary considerably with the EU focusing on police capacity building, the OSCE on the judiciary and the UN providing monitoring functions. In the second half, the article uses insights from cooperation between these organizations on the ground in Kosovo, Mali and Armenia to determine levels of interaction. Despite relatively few conflicts between these organizations, we find that they continue to work in parallel with each organization focusing on their narrow mandate and competences.
The article considers the conceptual framework of EU security law and its realization in crisis management strategy, approaches to Eastern Europe and Ukrainian security issues, sanctions against Russia, EU missions to Ukraine. The object of the study is to distinguish and reconstruct the most important concepts underlying the security law of the EU, the legal ideology thereof and its implementation in the situation of Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The same way, the study provides a new key to understand the principal conceptual transformations of the international security law. The study shows that EU has implemented a wide range of non-military peacekeeping / anti-crisis instruments of its foreign policy in response to Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine, in particular, political, diplomatic, economic, trade, civilian operational. And they should not be derogated. But, given the general features of the development of the Union's foreign and security law and policy, there is no reason to expect that the Union will play a crucial role in restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity. Instead, as the authors propose, the intentions, potential and tools of the EU's "soft power", including the potential of two functioning EU missions, should be fully exploited to de-escalate the crisis, enhance the resilience and economic development of the Ukrainian state, and manage conflicts in Ukrainian society. That could be the proper way to implement positively the new international security law paradigm potential.