The applicability and application of international humanitarian law to multinational forces

Abstract

The multifaceted nature of peace operations today and the increasingly violent environments in which their personnel operate increase the likelihood of their being called upon to use force. It thus becomes all the more important to understand when and how international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to their action. This article attempts to clarify the conditions for IHL applicability to multinational forces, the extent to which this body of law applies to peace operations, the determination of the parties to a conflict involving a multinational peace operation and the classification of such conflict. Finally, it tackles the important question of the personal, temporal and geographical scope of IHL in peace operations.

Importance of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Training in Armed Police Force, Nepal

“…Command responsibility assigns criminal responsibility to higher-ranking members of military for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by their subordinates (Normand, 2017). Individual criminal responsibility for war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts has been explicitly included in international humanitarian law treaties (Henckaerts et al, 2005) In relation to involvement of international organizations in armed conflict, Ferraro (2013) states that an evolving interpretation of the law contends that an international armed conflict exists whenever two or more entities possessing international legal personality resort to armed force in relation between them. Such interpretation possibly put the action of international organization within the scope of IHL.…”

“…Moreover, a ‗robust turn' of UN peace operations has provided increased authorization and willingness to use force in protection of civilians and implementation of peace stabilizations (Hunt, 2017). Ferraro (2013) notes that the responsibilities and tasks assigned to multinational forces have also evolved to encompass a spectrum of operations including conflict prevention, peace-keeping, peacemaking, peace-enforcement and peace-building. The multifaceted nature of these operations means multinational forces are more likely to use force and raises the question of when and how IHL will apply to their actions.…”

International legal protection of medical personnel in warfare and peace missions

“…It rather concluded that the UN did not have (or no longer had) exclusive operational control over Dutchbat, and that the state of the Netherlands was responsible for those actions in terms of domestic tort law.". tection as civilians and cannot be treated as a legitimate target despite the warfare situation 24 . Structure and levels of medical support for UN peacekeeping missions have been standardized and generally supported by the medical support unit of the Department for Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO) of the UN 25 .…”

Leuven Manual on the International Law Applicable to Peace Operations Terry D. Gill, Dieter Fleck, William H. Boothby and Alfons Vanheusden (eds)*

“…29 However, as explained by Tristan Ferraro, the Bulletin's approach conflates the temporary and activity-based loss of protection by civilians with the continuous and status-based loss of protection of combatants. 30 The result for peacekeepers would be "an illogical disparity between them and their opponents and would give an operational advantage to the multinational forces, because the opposing party in the armed conflict would continue to be subject to lawful direct attack at any time." 31 The Leuven Manual misses the chance to rule out this disparity by excluding the notion that peace operations' contingents can begin and end their participation in an armed conflict on their own terms by merely deciding to engage in and disengage from hostilities.…”