Right to Protect and Enforce Committee: The Reform to Protect Human Rights and Enforce Peace

The United Nations’ mandate to end international war remains steady and intact through the use of peacekeeping missions over the last sixty-three years. While these operations seek to reduce war in the international sector, there remain certain deficiencies that deserve additional attention and further action by international participants like the United Nations. Skepticism exists where the United Nations (UN) has not acted to protect the peace and security of the world, which undermines the credibility of the organization (Carrasco 2008). Members of the United Nations cannot allow this skepticism to continue. To do this, members must work collectively to ensure that there is durable growth in security, rule of law, sustainable development, human rights and national compromise (United Nations 2019). While these crucial aspects are important and should be pursued, human rights take precedence in any peacekeeping act of the United Nations Security Council. As a member of the UN, Finland, proposes to reform the peacekeeping operations in order to reduce and ultimately end international war. Specifically, create an advisory committee, the Right to Protect and Enforce Committee (RPEC), will refer discovered threats to the United Nations Security Council for further action to ensure permanent peace among situations involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

First, the UN has issued several peacekeeping operations across the world, and the missions have differed in various ways because of the UN Charter’s specifications. Peacekeeping operations (PKO) consist of two types of missions, but the Charter only mentions the solution to threats that breach peace and security in Chapter VII (United Nations 2019). The UNSC authorizes military and non-military operations to intervene in certain situations that they consider threatening. These modes of peaceful operation can either be “peacekeeping” or “peace enforcement” missions. The RPEC will authorize and refer both operations to the UNSC.

Peacekeeping missions are mediated by the UN through lightly armed troops only allowed to use force to defend their lives. The UN obtains consent from the state’s government to enter the country and proceed with impartial non-military operations (Hurd 2018). Peace enforcement missions are found in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Enforcement missions are heavily armed, and they do not require the consent of states. They are forceful invasions authorized by the UNSC to wage war if necessary, to enforce peace (Hurd 2018). Peace enforcement missions occur far less than peacekeeping missions because they require extensive resources contributed by the member states. However, all PKO can be expensive on the member states (Cameron 2017). Both modes of PKO attempt to secure permanent peace in states, but the modes also possess flaws that the RPEC will reform.

Next, there are two PKO that highlight these flaws. The Rwanda mission (UNAMIR) and the Darfur mission (UNAMID) were both established in the 1990’s, and UNAMID continues today. UNAMIR was deployed to issue peace amidst the Rwandan civil war in 1993. During the initial unrest, the UN stepped in, with Rwanda’s to mediate the issues and maintain a ceasefire agreement between the conflicting political parties (Carrasco 2008). The Rwandan government sought to maintain its power by eradicating the Tutsi population that opposed the regime. The government was supported by parts of the Hutu population, but they planned and accomplished the mass murder of many Tutsis (Hurd 2018). After the violation of the ceasefire agreement, the UNSC’s mandate was void because the troops were not authorized to use military force. After much deliberation, the UNSC interpreted this situation as an issue under domestic jurisdiction that did not threaten international peace and security and consequently, the UNSC reduced the troops in Rwanda (Hurd 2018). This resulted in the mass killing of 800,000 Tutsi men, women, and children (Carrasco 2008). The situation in Rwanda led to one of the worst genocides in history, and the delayed reactions to the situation left the UNSC to blame.

The Darfur UNAMID mission began in 2007, but the events that led to the established operation occurred in the 1990’s and still continue today. Similar to Rwanda, the Sudanese government tried to maintain power and used para-state militias to eradicate opposing ethnic groups: the Fur, the Masalit, and the Zaghawa (Hurd 2018). The government succeeded in the mass killing of 400,000 people, and millions more were left without homes, land, and security (Hurd 2018). The UNSC struggled to determine if the atrocities were a threat to international peace and security or if they were part of domestic civil war, and because of the difficult deliberation, the UNSC did not act (Hurd 2018). This delay resulted in mass murder and ethnic cleansing that led to the overdue hybrid peace operation established in 2007. Both UNAMIR and UNAMID highlight the flaws in the PKO process of the UNSC because the council should have acted immediately upon the discovery of these atrocious crimes.

Next, challenges surround peacekeeping missions, but there must be cooperative and active commitment to successfully end human rights issues (United Nations 2019). In order to do this, the peacekeeping operation process must be reformed through the establishment of the Right to Protect and Enforce Committee. The advisory committee above the Security Council would essentially discover threats to international peace and security and determine the subsequent steps to eliminate these threats. Specifically, the committee would have six weeks to decide if the situation needed military intervention or not. Their decisions would be based on the Responsibility to Protect mandate, and upon verification, the committee can refer the situation and necessary actions to the Security Council, who must implement the referral in a timely manner.

In the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mandate, states have the sovereignty and responsibility to prevent, react, and rebuild their population if crimes such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity are committed (Côté-Harper et al. 2001). However, not all states have implemented these practices, so the UN intervenes in various ways if the states are unable or unwilling to address the issues (Côté-Harper et al. 2001). If the committee concludes that the situation should be solved by a peace enforcement mission, the mandate only allows the UNSC to use military intervention if they observe evidential verification, which would be previously verified by the committee. Force is justified when every preventative measure has been taken (Côté-Harper et al. 2001). Military interventions must not worsen the situation, and ultimately, it must cease human suffering (Côté-Harper et al. 2001). Moreover, the R2P mandate is not a peacekeeping operation, but its principles offer a solid foundation for the RPEC (McDougall 2017).

The RPEC will consist of seven members who make decisions using the guiding principles of the R2P mandate. The Secretary General (SG), the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect will be permanent members. The General Assembly will vote to nominate the other four members using a two-thirds majority vote, which will then be referred to the Secretary General for confirmation. Currently, the SG already discovers international threats, so he/she would manage the committee. After his/her finding, the committee would determine if the situation needs military intervention or if non-military tools would suffice. They would decide using a two-thirds majority voting process.

After formulating a decision, the RPEC would refer the situation to the SC. They would handle the next steps using their external resources like the Military Staff Committee and formulate a reactive plan based on the RPEC referral. The reform ensures the UNSC acts to deploy military intervention for a situation that involves the crimes depicted in the R2P mandate if all non-military prevention has failed. The UNSC will not have the option to reject referrals, meaning that P-5 members cannot exercise their veto power against any situation that the RPEC refers.

With any reform, opposition is present. This specific peacekeeping reform offers some points of consideration. First, this reform threatens state sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction, similar to peace enforcement missions. The UNSC holds the authority to enter a country and use military intervention without state consent. The troops are partial to a particular side to cease the threats. Second, this reform directly limits the P-5 members’ veto power. They are not allowed to reject a referral, and they must act according to the RPEC referral. Third, creating another committee within the UN increases financial costs for member states. This committee will need a space to meet with all necessary meeting materials, as well as travel accommodations for members. Finally, the General Assembly chooses the four RPEC members, and this could lead to member states nominating based on their individual interests, which the SG can alleviate through approval or denial.

While these costs hold great significance, the reform shares greater benefits to accomplish the original goal of the UN: to reduce human rights issues and ultimately threats to international peace and security. Obviously, this reform offers immediate humanitarian aid and saves the lives of many civilians through implementing the R2P principles. While the reform may threaten state sovereignty, the reform could help preserve domestic jurisdiction and security of surrounding states. Affected citizens may emigrate and cause immigration issues, which can be expensive. The reform will eliminate the threat to citizens, so they will not leave the country for safety. Finally, this reform ensures that the SC is not making decisions based on their individual interests. This reform is a small but necessary and significant step in reducing current humanitarian issues worldwide, and in the future, Finland suggests that the UN revisits a standing reaction force to allow these military interventions to occur easily. As of now, this reform can continue the journey of preserving human rights more effectively.

The UN is focused on reducing threats to international peace and security, and specifically, human rights protection. In order to ensure this protection, peacekeeping operations must be reformed. UNAMIR and UNAMID highlight the needed reform of the peacekeeping operations. The addition of the Right to Protect and Enforce Committee will ensure that all threats to international peace and security are resolved with the necessary amount of preventative or forceful measures. RPEC referrals to the Security Council are necessary and crucial to saving thousands of civilians’ lives. RPEC has costs as well as pronounced benefits and ultimately opens a path to a solution for international humanitarian issues and threats to international peace and security. Moreover, the reform has the potential to depict the UN among critics as an international organization that seeks to use its authority to strengthen and preserve international peace and security.

References

Cameron, Lindsey. 2019. “Principles of Peacekeeping.” United Nations Peacekeeping. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping.

Carrasco, Alfonso Sánchez. 2008. “We Don't Want to and You Can't Make Us UN Security Council Reform and Peacekeeping Efficacy." Master's thesis. The University of Texas at El Paso.

Côté-Harper, Gisèle et al. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/responsibility-protect-report-international-commission-intervention-and-state-sovereignty

Hurd, Ian. 2018. International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. 3rd Edition: 80-104. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2018. doi: 10.1017/9781316869604.

McDougall, Derek. 2017. “Peacekeeping from Oceania: Perspectives from Australia, New Zealand and Fiji.” The Round Table 106(4): 453–66. doi: 10.1080/00358533.2017.1352151

United Nations. 2019. "Declaration of Shared Commitments on UN Peacekeeping Operations. Action for Peacekeeping. https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/a4p-declaration-en.pdf

[MOU1]Act on seems as though they have a choice, and we don’t want to give them a choice.