No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Although the United Nations has undertaken more than a dozen peacekeeping operations, and Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim has affirmed that “peacekeeping constituted a principal, and perhaps the most vital, function of the UN,” there is no agreement on the definition of the political and jurisdical scope, or any uniform procedural basis, for such peacekeeping operations. As a matter of fact, the term peacekeeping does not even appear in the UN Charter.
Most commentators, however, draw a sharp distinction between peacekeeping operations undertaken pursuant to chapter VI of the Charter on pacific settlement of disputes and enforcement action authorized by the Security Council under chapter VII. As one Swedish diplomat explained, peacekeeping operations are essentially voluntary, undertaken at the request or with the consent of the country in whose territory an operation is to take place, and do not impose any obligation on member states in regard to personnel, equipment or logistics.
1 UN Doc. A/AC.121/SR 53, at 2. Even the representative of France commented that “the question of the peacekeeping operations was without doubt one of the most important and controversial issues to have arisen in the United Nations. However, a solution would have to be found if the United Nations was to function in an effective manner.” UN Doc. A/SPC/SR. 899, at 7.
2 Statement of the representative of Sweden at the third meeting of the Special Committee on April 23, 1965 UN Doc. A/5915/Add. 1, at 39–40.
3 For an incisive analysis of the concept of peacekeeping, see Wainhouse, David W., International Peacekeeping at the Crossroads: National Support — Experience and Prospects 1–10 (Baltimore: 1973).Google Scholar
4 For Secretary-General Trygve Lie’s plan for the establishment of UN guards consisting of 5,000 to 10,000 men, see Lie, Trygve In the Cause of Peace 193–93, 280 (New York: 1954)Google Scholar. For a summary of the discussion in the General Assembly, Fifth Session (1950), on the “Development of a Twenty-Year Programme for achieving Peace through the United Nations,” and text of Resolution 494 (V) adopted by the General Assembly on November 20, 1950, see Year Book of the United Nations (1950) at 214–20.
5 As of 1974, the following states have served notice on the United Nations that they have earmarked their national military units for possible UN peace-keeping duties (some of these states having also established internal procedures for the purpose): Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and New Zealand. The total strength of these standby forces is estimated to be approximately 11,000 men. See Controlling Conflicts in the 1970’s, report of a national policy panel under chairmanship of President Kingman Brewster, Jr. of Yale University, issued by United Nations Association of U.S.A., at 38. The United States Congress in 1967 expressed its interest in the arrangement on standby forces by adopting Section 304 of the Foreign Aid Bill in the following words: “It is the sense of the Congress that the cause of international order and peace can be enhanced by the establishment, within the United Nations Organization, of improved arrangement for standby forces being maintained by United Nations members for United Nations peacekeeping purpose in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The President is therefore requested to explore through the United States representative to the United Nations, and in cooperation with other members of the United Nations and the United Nations Secretariat, both the means and the prospects of establishing such peacekeeping arrangements.” Hearing on United Nations Peacekeeping, subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 19th Congress, 2nd Session, May 1 and 2, 1968, at 168. By a joint memorandum dated October 2, 1973, the permanent representatives of Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark transmitted to the Secretary General a study on “Nordic Standby Forces in United Nations Service” which, apart from giving basic factual information on the Nordic stand-by forces, also dealt with various problems that a heterogeneous UN force might encounter in the course of its formation, transport to the operational area, and during the initial phase of a peacekeeping mission. For details, see UN Doc. A/SPC/165, Annexes.
6 The membership of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations consisted of Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Hungary, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Arab Republic, USSR, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. Sweden subsequently resigned from the committee and was replaced by Denmark. The People’s Republic of China has never accepted an invitation to participate.
7 UN Doc. 5721. Text of letter dated July 10, 1964, from the permanent representative of the USSR to the Secretary-General.
8 UN Doc. A/5739. Letter dated October 8, 1964, from the permanent representative of the United States to the Secretary-General.
9 Ibid.
10 UN General Assembly, 19th Session (1965), Off. Rec, Annexes No. 21, at 21: also UN Doc. A/AC.121/ PV.3, at 3.
11 Ibid., 40.
12 In a written statement subsequently submitted by Canada during the 20th Session of the General Assembly, the position of Canada was further clarified as follows: “The Government of Canada interprets those guidelines taken together as being without prejudice to the right of the General Assembly to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security at any time, even if such questions require action in the meaning of Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Charter. Thus, under Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter, the Assembly may discuss such questions before referring them to the Security Council and may also discuss them while the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the Charter, it being prevented under Article 12, paragraph 1 only from making recommendations while the Security Council is exercising such functions.” UN General Assembly, 20th Session, Off. Rec, Annexes, Agenda Item 101, at 14.
13 UN Doc. A/5915/Add., Annex II, Report of the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly, 85.
14 UN Doc. A/6026, note by the Secretary-General and Annexes.
15 UN Doc. A/5915 and Add. I; A/5916 and Annexes. For the third report of the committee, see UN Doc. A/6414.
16 UN General Assembly, 20th Session, Off. Rec., Special Political Committee, 461st meeting, November 19, 1965, at I.
17 Ibid. See also Special Political Committee, 483rd Meeting, December 8, 1965, at 5-6, for Mr. Beaulieu’s introduction of draft resolution.
18 Ibid. Special Political Committee, 488th Meeting, December 13, 1965. Also UN Doc. A/6158, report of the Special Political Committee. For action by the General Assembly and text of Resolution 2053 (XX), see General Assembly, 20th Session, Off. Rec. Annexes, Agenda Item 101, at 29.
19 UN Doc. A/AC.121/SR 20 and UN Doc. 6414, Annex I, Summary Record of 20th Meeting of Special Committee, April 29, 1966.
20 UN Doc. A/AC.121/WG SR I.
21 Ibid.
22 UN Doc. A/6414.
23 For Mr. Trudeau’s Statement, see General Assembly, 21st Session, Off. Rec. Special Political Committee 517th Meeting, November 16, 1966, issued as A/SPC/SR 517. For Mr. Martin’s statement, see UN Doc. A/SPC/SR 521.
24 Text of draft resolution in UN Doc. A/SPC/L 130/Rev. 4.
25 UN Doc. A/SPC/SR 545.
26 For details on the General Assembly’s action, see UN Doc. A/6701, Supp. No. 1: Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 16 June 1966–15 June 1967, at 61–63. Also the graphic description of the Assembly’s debate in U.S. Participation in the UN: Report by the President of the United States to Congress for 1966, at 74–75. Action by the General Assembly took the form of adoption of Resolution 2220 (XXI), on December 19, 1966. Subsequently the Fifth Special Session of the General Assembly, at the conclusion of the debate on peacekeeping operations, adopted on May 23, 1967, Resolution 2249 (S-V) again requesting “the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations to continue the review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all its aspects” and to report to the next session of the General Assembly. For text of Resolution, see UN Doc. A/6815.
27 UN Doc. A/AC. 121/SR 23-26. For report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, dated September 14, 1967, see UN Doc. A/6815.
28 The General Assembly at its 22nd Session adopted on December 13, 1967, Resolution 2308 (XXII) which, in addition to affirming Resolution 2249 (S-V), expresed the view that it “considers that the preparation of a study on matters relating to facilities, services and personnel, which Member States might provide, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, for United Nations peacekeeping operations would be appropriate.” For report of the Special Political Committee see UN Doc. A/6959, in General Assembly, 22nd Sess., Off. Rec, Annexes, Agenda item 37. For text of Resolution 2308, see UN Doc. 7131.
29 Progress report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations dated July 2, 1968, UN Doc. A/7131.
30 The commentary submitted by Ambassador George Ignatieff on behalf of the Canadian government consisted of two parts, part I entitled “Canadian Armed Forces Participation in Peacekeeping Operations and Observer Missions,” and part II entitled “Procedures for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Observer Missions.” The Canadian document was issued on June 19, 1968, as UN Doc. A/AC.121/17.
31 Supra note 29 and UN Doc. A/7396.
32 For report of the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly, 23rd Session, and text of Resolution 2451, see UN Doc. A/7455.
33 UN Doc. A/7742, report of Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, November 3, 1969. For first report of the working group, see Annex to UN A/7742; Contents of Study on Model I, in Appendix to Annex.
34 Annex to UN Doc. A/7742.
35 UN Doc. A/7742.
36 UN Doc. A/7878, December 11, 1969.
37 For the document submitted by USSR on “Basic Guiding Principles for the Conduct of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations including United Nations Observer Missions,” see UN Doc. A/8669; for United States’ statement, UN Doc. A/8676; and Canada’s “Memorandum on Command and Control of Peacekeeping Operations,” UN Doc. A/SPC/152. Other submissions by member states are contained in UN Doc. A/AC.121/L.15 and 3 addenda.
38 The entries in Table I have been compiled on the basis of a careful analysis of UN Docs. A/8669, A/8676, A/AC.121/L.15 and Add., and A/AC.121/ L. 181. Account has also been taken of the discussions in the Committee of 33 and its working group during those years. Special attention may be drawn to the remarks of Mr. Beaulne, the representative of Canada, at the 39th meeting of the committee on January 28, 1970, as follows: “Certain delegations interpreted the Charter to mean that the Security Council had direct authority over all phases of the missions we were considering. They insisted that this reading should be embedded in our text. This is of course an understandable concern on the part of those who fear that United Nations military observer missions might be turned against their interests and who seek therefore to reinsure themselves against such a danger. Others held the opinion that both the Charter and the practice well-established over the past twenty years conferred on other organs of the United Nations, notably the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, responsibility in the area of our model which should receive due notice. This also is a viewpoint which is natural to those who fear that exclusive Security Council control could jeopardize the effectiveness or even the survival of United Nations observer missions except when they actually served the interests of certain Governments.… The Canadian Delegation in this context found itself unable to agree entirely with any of those approaches. We consider that all will have to be modified in some respect if the Committee is to agree on the questions now omitted from [the] document under consideration. Otherwise it is doubtful that reliable, practical and generally acceptable institutionalization of United Nations peacekeeping action can take place, even for the limited area we are immediately concerned with.” UN Doc. A/AC.121/SR.39, at 16.
39 For reports of the Committee of 33, see UN Doc. A/8550 (December 3, 1971) enclosing 3rd and 4th reports of the working group as annexes. For report of the Committee of 33 (November 13, 1972), see UN Doc. A/8888, enclosing 5th report of the working group as annex. The General Assembly at its 27th Session approved on December 13, 1972, the action proposed by its Special Political Committee on agenda item 41 by adopting Resolution 2965, urging, inter alia, “the Special Committee to accelerate and intensify its work so as to make substantive progress, in view of the importance of achieving, in pursuance of its mandate, agreed guidelines for carrying out peacekeeping operations in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.” For Report of the Special Political Committee and text of resolution, see UN Doc. A/8926.
40 UN Doc. A/9236, 2 Annexes and Appendix, report of Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (November 21, 1973).
41 UN Doc. A/SPC/L.293; U.N. Monthly Chronicle, vol. X, no. 11, December 1973, at. 29; and UN Doc. A/RES/3091 (XXVIII).
42 Bloomfield, Lincoln P., The United Nations and U.S. Foreign Policy 46–47 (Boston: 1967).Google Scholar
43 Cf. Dallin, Alexander, The Soviet Union at the United Nations 9–12 (New York: 1962).Google Scholar
44 U.N. Monthly Chronicle, vol. IV, no. 9, October 1967, at 102.
45 See Foreign Policy for Canadians: United Nations 16 (Ottawa: Dept. of External Affairs, 1970).
46 See White Paper on Defence 40 (August 1971, Donald S. MacDonald, Minister of National Defence, Ottawa).
47 A brief reference should be made to the Eighth Report of the Working Group of the Committee of 33, released on October 8, 1974. In accordance with General Assembly Resolution 3091 (XXVIII), the Working Group held sixteen meetings from April to October 1974 and concentrated its attention on the elaboration of “agreed guidelines for carrying out peacekeeping operations.” The Group succeeded in preparing a number of alternative or complementary draft formulas for articles of the agreed guidelines. Although these formulas were not definitive and in some cases contained mutually exclusive language, the compilation represented definite progress in the difficult task assigned to the Committee. For details, see UN Doc. A/AC. 121/ L.23.