This article examines the status of military and civilian personnel of sending states and international organisations involved in UN peace operations. It undertakes an assessment of relevant customary law, examines various forms of treaty regulation and considers topics and procedures for effective settlement of open issues prior to the mission. The author stresses the need for cooperation between the host state, the sending states and the international organisation in this context. He draws some conclusions with a view to enhancing the legal protection of personnel involved in current and future UN peace operations.

No abstract

No abstract

The implementation of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts must be considered in the light of three basic problems.First, in time of peace no one wants to think about the kind of situation where this body of law is put into practice. Nor is it easy to foster enthusiasm for legal rules which are beyond people's personal experience. But unless certain efforts are made and steps taken in peacetime, it cannot be expected that these rules will be implemented in time of crisis or war.

The Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) on Responsibility to Protect (R2P) rests on three pillars (prevent, react, and rebuild). In a legal sense the latter pillar may be more innovative than the former two. Looking into the most crucial areas of post-conflict peacebuilding as addressed in the Report-security, justice, and economic development-the Article evaluates existing law, identifies lacunae, and comments on the obligation to cooperate, the protection of human rights, and the need for judicial control in peace operations. In this context the new UN Peacebuilding Commission could be an essential tool for implementing the ICISS Report in practice. The proposals of the Report related to peacebuilding are progressive, but fully compatible with the existing Charter architecture. R2P might successfully contribute to law-creation in that a future engagement in peace operations or transitional administration could be considered unlawful, if activities for post-conflict peacebuilding would not be seriously considered, effectively planned and fully implemented.