Gender Dimensions of Peace Support Operations

Peace Support Operations (PSO) are multifunctional operations, conducted impartially, normally in pursuit of United Nations Charter purposes and principles, to restore or maintain peace. [1] PSO are designed to achieve a long-term political settlement or other specified conditions.[2] They normally involve the sending of military personnel and equipment of one or more sovereign nation into, or over the territory of another sovereign nation.[3] Additionally, they are usually coordinated by international or regional organizations. Such operations may include conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace enforcement, peacekeeping, peace building and/or humanitarian operations. Though gender aspects of peace support operations are evident, they are not often given due consideration in peace support operations. Gender is defined as ‘the relations between men and women, both perceptual and material.[4] It also refers to the asymmetric power differences, hierarchy, and differences in participation in decision-making. Armed conflicts affect men and women differently.  Therefore, a gendered approach to the restoration of peace is essential to adequately respond to the special needs of women and girls. This could entail ensuring the effective protection of the rights of women affected by armed conflicts and the integration of gender issues into peace support operations. This article shall purpose to highlight three broad gender aspects of peace support operations namely, participation of women in peace support operations, sexual and gender based violence and role reversal.

1.     Participation of women in peace support operations

Firstly, women have become active participants in armed conflicts. Their participation ranges from providing military to non-military support such as spying and recruiting fighters. Others provide support in the usual domestic roles or other roles which they are coerced or manipulated into performing. Despite this, they continue to be marginalized and excluded from peace negotiations.  Additionally, there is an increased participation of women in social and political matters during armed conflicts. For instance, women have been predominantly active in community-based organisations and NGOs. There is thus the need to give women more voice in peace talks, peace accords, and post conflict political processes.  It has been shown in certain cases that women are better able than men to bridge divisions, raise issues relevance to women and set other priorities for post conflict rehabilitation. To achieve this, peacekeepers can endeavour to show that women's inclusion in political and peace processes has a clear benefit to process of peace restoration

The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 calls for all actors involved in negotiating and implementing peace agreements to adopt a gender perspective that included the special needs of women and girls during  repatriation and resettlement, rehabilitation, reintegration and post conflict reconstruction.[5]  This Resolution outlines the positive role that women can play in conflict prevention, peace negotiations, peace building and post conflict recovery process. The Windhoek Declaration of 1999 and the Namibian Plan of Action on the other hand called for the United Nations Department of Peace Keeping Operations (UNDPKO) to initiate measures to advance gender balance and gender equality at all levels of peace support operations. The participation of women in peace keeping operations will be beneficial. The benefit results from their potential advantage in accessing and working with vulnerable populations, particularly with female victims of sexual and gender based violence. However, advancing gender balance in peace support operations might be challenging since it is based on the willingness of the UN member states. Each UN member state supplies the UN with the armed forces and necessary facilities to assist in maintaining international peace and security. The UN has no input in the selection of the personnel provided by the troop-contributing countries.

2.     Sexual and gender based violence

Generally, armed conflicts are usually accompanied by blatant violations of human rights. Certain human rights violations are of a sexual nature and mostly affect women. The existence of these violations reiterate the fact that armed conflicts exacerbate the inequalities between men and women.  Women and girls are exposed to of abuses such as gang rape, sexual slavery, forced sex in exchange of protection or food, and forced marriages. The situation is aggravated when sexual violence is employed by fighters as a means of warfare to demoralize the enemy. Additionally, refugees and internally displaced women and girls suffer human right abuses throughout their displacement.

The Rome Statute criminalizes and explicitly defines sexual and gender based violence as crimes against humanity.[6] Therefore, by recognizing sexual and gender-based violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Rome Statute dispels the notion that sexual and gender based violence are merely acts collateral to war. The statute ensures that women who are victims of the gravest crimes under international law have access to justice. This provision is strengthened by the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and the International criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. These also reinforce and further advance previous prohibitions in IHL regarding violence against women contained in The Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol of 1977.[7]

Peace Support Operations must be prepared to address fully, sexual violations in ways that are sensitive to the needs of victims as well to prevent the further use of sexual and gender-based violence. In doing so, they must be guided by international norms relating to the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of the crimes. Therefore, the international bodies responsible for PSO initiatives, peace keepers and other relevant international agencies should ensure that;

the international legal standards relating to sexual and gender based violence are included in interim criminal codes for use by transitional authorities providing civilian police functions and  protection of the local population.

that all peacekeepers receive mandatory training in human rights and the protection of civilians from gender-based violence, in particular the specific protection needs of women.

Furthermore, PSO can endeavour to strengthen the rule of law and work in close cooperation with civilian police.[8] Moreover, in order to minimize violations of sexual nature in refugee and/or IDP camps and in transit sites, peace keepers can institute proper security measures and initiate measures to build the capacity of local actors to provide adequate long-time assistance to survivors of sexual violence.

3.     Shifting roles and responsibilities 

The continued absence of men and women in households is an inevitable consequent of armed conflicts. The absence can result from death, migration and displacement.  Such absence may cause men, but more so women to assume new roles and responsibilities both outside and inside the household. To effectively perform the new roles, the women may need to acquire new skills. The family as a whole will be economically affected. Therefore, Peace Support Operations need to tackle the issue of reversal of roles to alleviate the economic conditions of the affected families. This can be done by the building of a post conflict socio-economic assistance program based on women's new acquired skills, as well as ensuring more gender balance in accessing productive resources and labour markets. 

Conclusion

It is apparent that Peace Support Operations have gender dimensions. The gender aspects of the peace operations result from the inequalities between men and women. These inequalities are exacerbated by armed conflicts. These gender based differences and inequalities need to be addressed through the process of gender mainstreaming.[9] The United Nations and other organisations coordinating peace support operations need to intensify their efforts to ensure that gender issues are fully integrated in peace keeping operations. This can be done by training peace keepers on gender issues, increasing the participation of women in Peace Support Operations and enhancing the protection of women against sexual and gender based violence.  

---

[1] NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, AAP-6 2010

[2] Waters, C. "Marten Zwanenburg, Accountability of Peace Support Operations. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005, 363pp. Xi. ISBN 90-04-14350-5." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 11.1 (2006): 157-58. Web.

[3] "Chapter , The Strategic Environment - Published in Peace Support Operations: A Working Draft Manual for African Military Practitioners, DWM 1-2000 February 2000."Chapter , The Strategic Environment - Published in Peace Support Operations: A Working Draft Manual for African Military Practitioners, DWM 1-2000 February 2000. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

[4] "WHAT IS GENDER?" What Is Gender? N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

[5] "[31 Oct 2000] SC/6942 : SECURITY COUNCIL, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1325 (2000), CALLS FOR BROAD PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN PEACE-BUILDING, POST-CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION."UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

[6] See article 7(g) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

[7] The Geneva Conventions do not mention rape or other forms of sexual and gender based violence; these violations are mentioned as 'violations against human dignity'.

[8] http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20050400_cru_proc.pdf

[9] Gender mainstreaming involves ensuring that  gender perspectives and attention to the goal of gender equality are central to all activities  i.e. policy development ,research, advocacy, legislation, resource allocation, and planning implementation and monitoring of programs and projects. see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/gendermainstreaming.htm

 

Arms Trade Treaty: Obligations of State Parties

On 2^nd April 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Arms Trade treaty. Only North Korea, Iran and Syria voted to reject the treaty.[1] The overwhelming adoption of the treaty was instigated by the need to promote world peace by reigning in on the uninhibited and irresponsible transfer of arms across borders. This irresponsible transfer of arms across borders has continued to pose a threat to world peace by fuelling conflicts in a number of areas including Africa's great lakes regions, Somalia, West Africa,  Syria and Afghanistan just to mention a few. The treaty was thus adopted in accordance with article 26 of the UN charter that seeks to address the problem of militarism.[2]

Accordingly, this treaty seeks to; (1) establish common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of international trade in conventional arms, and (2) prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion.[3] It therefore provides a framework for regulating  international trade in all conventional arms, from small arms and light weapons to battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, attack helicopters aircraft, warships, and missile and missile launchers.[4] In order to actualize its purposes and objectives, the treaty imposes certain obligations on the States Parties. This essay shall discuss those obligations. The essay shall further provide an overview of the status of the treaty.

 TREATY OBLIGATIONS[5]

First and foremost each state party has a general obligation to implement the treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner.[6] Below are some of the main obligations imposed on states parties.

(i)                 Establishment of a national control system

Each state party is required to establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list in order to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the treaty.[7] The control system shall be used to regulate the transfer of conventional arms covered under article 2(1), and/or their items. The items referred to are; (1) ammunitions/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional weapons covered by the treaty,[8] (2) parts and components which are in the form that provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered by the treaty.[9] Furthermore, the treaty obliges each state party to establish and maintain a national control list and submit to the secretariat, which shall make it available to other state parties.[10]

(ii)              Prohibition

Article 6 codifies a prohibition on the transfer of conventional arms. The article imposes an obligation on a state party not to authorize any transfer of conventional arms or their ammunition/munitions or their parts and components if such a transfer would;

• Violate measures adopted by the United Nations Security Council in particular arms embargoes.
• Violate its relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a party, in particular those relating to transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.

Additionally, the article also prohibits a state party from authorizing the transfer of conventional arms and items, if it has knowledge that arms or the items will be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or other war crimes.

(iii)            Export and Import

Article 7 of the treaty similarly imposes a number of obligations on state parties with regard to the exportation of conventional weapons. An exporting state party shall take measures to ensure that all authorizations for the exportation of conventional arms under article 2.1, 3 and 4 are detailed and issued prior to export.[11] Moreover, before the exportation, the exporting state should endeavour to assess the potential risks of exporting the conventional arms or items. The assessment should be done with the aim of ascertaining whether the export of the conventional arms would contribute to or undermine peace and security or could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of International humanitarian Law or International Human Rights law, terrorism or organized crime.[12] The exporting state will use the result of the risk assessment to determine whether or not to export the arms.[13]

The importing state on is under a duty to provide the exporting state party with the appropriate and relevant information to facilitate the efficient assessment of risk.[14] Moreover, each importing state party shall take necessary measures to regulate imports of conventional arms under its jurisdiction. [15]

With regard to diversion, article 11 of the treaty calls for state parties involved in the transfer of conventional arms to take measures to prevent their diversion. Therefore, the importing, transit, trans-shipment and exporting state parties need to cooperate and exchange information pursuant to national laws in order to mitigate the risk of diversion.

(iv)             Transit or trans-shipment

Article 9 places an obligation on each state party to take appropriate measures to regulate, where necessary and feasible, the transit or trans-shipment under its jurisdiction of conventional arms through its territory in accordance with international law.

(v)               Reporting

Finally, each state party is required to prepare a report and submit to the secretariat detailing how the state is implementing the treaty.[16] Additionally, state parties are also encouraged to report to other state parties through the secretariat, information on measures taken that have been proven effective in addressing the diversion of transferred conventional arms.

Critique

The above obligations as contained in the treaty are however not definitive. The framers of the treaty sought to leave the state parties with the freedom to determine how well to fulfil the obligations imposed by the treaty. Consequently, party state have the freedom, to determine the nature of the national legislation and administrative measures that can be best used to implement the treaty provision. In other cases, the treaty only provides that the state parties are to fulfil their obligation as appropriate. It therefore remains to be seen whether state parties will be willingness to fulfil completely their obligations under the treaty.

Status of the treaty

The treaty was opened for signatures on 3^rd June 2003 and up to now, it has been signed by 83 states.  So far, only 4 states have ratified the treaty. These states include Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana, Iceland and Nigeria. The treaty will take effect once it is ratified by at least 50 states.[17] It has therefore not yet entered into force. Within the East African community, only Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi are signatories to the treaty.

CONCLUSION

All in all, the treaty marks a major step in the war against the illegal transfer of conventional arms across borders. The obligations imposed by the treaty underscore the commitment by the state parties to tighten controls over the international import, export and transfer of conventional arms. Such controls will play a crucial role in preventing the diversion of conventional arms from the legal international trade into illegal markets and eventually into the hands of terrorist organizations, illegal translational military groups and organized criminal cartels. The treaty will subject trade in conventional weapons to strict rules.[18]

---

[1] "JURIST - Hotline: Arms Trade Treaty Shows Remarkable Progress." JURIST - Hotline: Arms Trade Treaty Shows Remarkable Progress. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.

[2] Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, Can TS 1945 No 7 - Article 26 states; ' in order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armament of the world's economic resources, the Security council shall be responsible for formulating plans to be submitted to the members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulations of armaments.'

[3] article 1 of the treaty

[4] Article 2(1) of the treaty

[5] "Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) | Treaties & Regimes | NTI." NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.

[6] Article 5 Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[7] Ibid

[8] Article 3 Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[9] Article 4 Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[10] article 5 Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[11] Article 7(5) Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[12] Article 7(1) Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[13] A state is under a duty not to authorize exportation if there is risk that the conventional weapons will undermine peace or security.

[14] Article 8(1) Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[15] Article 8(2) Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[16] Article 13 Arms Trade Treaty  2013

[17] "Landmark Arms Treaty Needs Ratification by 50 States." DW.DE. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.

[18]"JURIST - Hotline: Arms Trade Treaty Shows Remarkable Progress." JURIST - Hotline: Arms Trade Treaty Shows Remarkable Progress. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2013.

Fundamental Principles of International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflicts. The fundamental purposes of international humanitarian law include,

• to prevent unnecessary suffering of combatants and non-combatants alike.
• to avoid an escalation or a spread in conflict and to prevent the horrors that accompany total warfare.
• to protect persons not taking active part in hostilities, civilian objects and civilian property and those combatants rendered hors de combat.

These purposes are reflected in the rules and principles of international humanitarian law. These rules represents a carefully thought out balance between two opposing interests, namely humanitarian concerns and military considerations. Every one of its rules constitutes a dialectical compromise between these two opposing forces. Moreover, the rules are also consistent with the fundamental principles of International humanitarian law which guide the conduct of hostilities by restricting or limiting the right of parties to a conflict to use the means and methods of warfare of their choice. This short article shall briefly examine the basic principles of International humanitarian law.

Principle of distinction

This principle requires belligerents to distinguish between military objectives and civilian persons or objectives at all times, and attack only military objectives. The principle is a recognised norm of customary international law. It is however restated in article 48 of Additional Protocol I as follows:

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Belligerents are therefore under a permanent obligations to ensure that the civilian population is spared and protected from hostilities at all times. However, certain military attacks may not be able to avoid civilian casualties. In such cases, the principle  of proportionality will provide comprehensive guidance.

Principle of military necessity

Military necessity is a principle that allows combatants to use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. The principle of military necessity places restrictions and limitations on military action in the interest of humanity, in the sense that no such action may be undertaken unless it is actually necessary in military terms. It underpins the idea that the aim of war is not the killing of as many members of the adverse armed forces as possible or the destruction of as much of the adverse belligerent property as possible; rather, belligerents should only adopt such measures as are necessary to overpower the enemy and to bring about its surrender. Accordingly, any attack must be intended and tend towards the military defeat of the enemy. This Principle is stated in the 1868 St. Petersburg declaration as follows;

The only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy.

It can be stated that the principle implies and allows for a hierarchy of acts in the context of armed conflict as follows;  one should capture rather than wound; one should wound rather than kill; one should kill less persons rather than kill more person.

The principle of proportionality

Under this principle, all military measures taken by belligerents must be proportionate to the aim they seek to accomplish. This principle comes into play whenever a lawful attack against military objectives causes civilian casualties or damage to non-military objectives.  The military advantage obtained by a particular military operation must outweigh the damage caused to civilians and civilian objects.

Therefore, when planning an operation, belligerents must carefully weigh up the importance of the military objective, alternative means by which the advantage may be achieved and the expected losses on the part of civilians. Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I formulates this principle by prohibiting attacks that cause incidental loss to civilians life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that s excessive in relation to the anticipated and direct military advantage of the attack. Furthermore, article 57(2)(a)(iii) of additional Protocol I requires commanders to refrain from deciding to launch an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

If it appears that an excessive number of civilians may be killed by an attack when compared to the relative importance of the advantage looked for, the attack will be prohibited.  The principle is well article 51(5) of the additional Protocol 1 as follows;

 Principle of humane treatment

This principle is a recognized norm of customary international law. It places a permanent obligation on parties to a conflict to treat civilians, hors de combats and other protected persons humanely at all times. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 lay down principles on how parties to a conflict should treat protected persons within their control. For instance, Common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires the humane treatment of 'persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat  by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause. This article does not define 'humane treatment' but it provides an example of acts which constitute inhumane treatment. These acts include violence to life and person (including cruel treatment and torture), the taking of hostages, and humiliating and degrading treatment. Article 27 on the other hand provides that;

 Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Similarly, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 states the general principle that Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. The Convention further set standards of treatment of Prisoners of war in relation  to their living conditions, health, food, clothing, possessions and discipline.