The Effect of ‘Stabilization’ in the Mandates and Practice of United Nations Peace Operations

While UN peace operations in the last decade have begun to explicitly seek ‘stabilization’ in the states to which they are deployed, the world body itself is yet to outline an organization-wide understanding of the term. “Instead, the mandates include varying activities under the heading of stabilization depending on the mission,” writes ALEXANDER GILDER in the Netherlands International Law Review.
Missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, and the Central African Republic have linked the term with offensive force, ‘robust’ force, counter-terrorism, and increased cooperation with host state forces. However, stabilization has also led to UN attention on returning basic services, building the capacity of the host state to enforce the rule of law, and an inclusive peace process.
“Public international lawyers have seldom addressed the adoption of stabilization by peace operation mandates despite the potential legal effects and the overall trajectory of the international security system,” GILDER writes. In light of stabilization mandates, what is needed is to ascertain the next steps in developing mandates which are flexible yet consistent, respond to the needs of individuals in harm’s way, but do not undermine the UN’s ability to maintain international peace and security, and ensure adherence to humanitarian and human rights laws.
Concurrently, stabilization missions have seen the use of language such as ‘robust posture’ and ‘active patrolling’, increased logistical capabilities from Western military hardware, the encroachment of a counter-terrorism rhetoric, operations alongside host state forces, and an emphasis on (re)establishing the rule of law. “Due to the competing interests introduced by stabilization, the mandates issued by the UN Security Council require further clarity and harmonization to prevent the pursuit of lasting peace from being undermined.”
The strategy of clearing an area of armed groups through the use of robust force to extend state authority and building peace in the vacuum left behind is not without its risks. It has been argued that the robust use of force in defense of the mandate strays into taking the initiative in the use of force and currently toes a fine line between peacekeeping and peace enforcement.
Furthermore, taking the initiative could lead to the intensification of hostilities and ultimately the UN could be regarded as a party to the conflict under international humanitarian law. In the future, the UN Security Council will need to clarify its use of the term ‘robust’ and the UN should provide legal guidance on the consequences of robust force and support for the host state.
In the current climate, counter-terrorism is a hot topic which demands the UN’s attention. It is important that the UN responds to current needs to be as relevant as possible and at the moment that means having a response to global terrorism. However, if the UN Security Council wishes to engage further with counter-terrorism operations the UN will need to be cautious about supporting the activities of other international and regional operations and the effect the support has on competing pursuits, such as supporting national reconciliation.
Operating alongside the host state is becoming a principal feature of stabilization and poses similar risks as counter-terrorism. Depending on the level of support provided the UN exposes itself to legal responsibility for wrongful acts committed by the host state.
A documented consequence of the host state violating human rights, for instance, is that the population feels marginalized from the peace process. The situation in Mali in particular needs to be monitored closely with future research examining the effect of counter-terror efforts on the Malian peace process.
The thread which links the issues discussed is how the UN will ensure harmony between the first stage of stabilization and the second. Under current practice competing interests in the mission mandates risk undermining each other. The focus of the missions above on the rule of law and using local-level peace initiatives to foster national reconciliation are positive developments in the mandating of operations.
However, the UN will need to carefully consider how it wishes to proceed in future stabilization mandates to avoid a situation where fighting terrorists or working closely alongside the state frustrates efforts to build an inclusive peace.
Particularly in international law, the effects of these new mandates which include robust force and counter-terror cooperation are underexplored. Stabilization mandates will need further attention from international lawyers in the coming years if the UN continues along its current plotted course.