The promotion of the rule of law has become a key objective of UN peace operations, and considerable resources are being invested in a range of related topics and activities. At the same time, discussions are underway within the United Nations and elsewhere on ways of addressing these challenges.
‘UN Peace Operations and the Rule of Law 1989–2017’, published by the Folke Bernadotte Academy (FBA), the Swedish government agency for peace, security and development, presents new data on the rule of law as a global peacekeeping and peacebuilding topic in the period 1989-2017. The data paint a picture of the kind of assistance actually being provided, how orientations and focal areas evolve, as well as geographical variations. They also offer a basis for discussion on how essential shifts in peacekeeping and rule-of-law policy are reflected in practice.
“We hope that this knowledge will enrich the discussions on the way peace operations define, deliver and measure the rule of law, writes FBA Director-General Sven-Eric Söder, in the Foreword. “We also hope that the report will inspire to and be a platform for further research and scholarship on various aspects of peacekeeping, peacebuilding and the rule of law.”
The data show that rule of law activity has rapidly grown from virtually nothing in 1989 to something almost all peace operations are currently engaged in. The rule of law has also expanded horizontally and now encompasses a range of different focal areas and practices. “The wider application of the rule of law seems more influenced by operational demand and evolvements in peacekeeping policy (for example the Brahimi Report) than the issuing of new rule of law policies and other instruments,” according to the principal authors PER BERGLING and MARIA NYSTEDT.
Several rule of law policy instruments in the period 1989-2017 actually endorse developments already underway, such as the expansion of the rule of law from law enforcement, justice and corrections to also addressing law-making, access to justice and constitutional reform. “It should be noted that since 2005, the proportions between the various focal areas are almost the same. It may be concluded that there is an increasingly established idea in the Security Council that the rule of law has a given place among other key peacebuilding tasks, and that individual peace operations interpret and report on their rule of law mandates in rather similar ways.”
Another observation the authors make is that the rule of law is not equally in focus everywhere. Of the total number of reported activities in the period, 64 percent have been implemented by operations in African countries. Of course, the vast majority of peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations has also been deployed to African countries. Other geographical areas, including Europe and the Americas, have seen only a few operations and consequently a much lower number of activities.
“There are some interesting implications. For example, is it at all possible to make empirical statements on the global ‘relevance’, ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the rule of law, when the concept is so unevenly applied, or to claim that rule of law policy is grounded in global experience and best practice?”
A closer look at data on individual peace operations reveals some patterns or crude sequences, the report states. The rationale and raison d’etre for peace operations – to keep and build peace – typically reflect in an initial focus on supporting law enforcement and judicial functions, and particularly in bringing high levels of political and ordinary violence and crime under control. After a few years in the country, and when the situation has stabilized, the scope of engagement tends to expand to comprise other focal areas such as legislative reform and administrative law reform, while maintaining a high activity level in law enforcement and adjacent areas such as detentions and corrections.
In recent operations, the expansion into new focal areas and increasing multifunctionality has taken place quickly, perhaps as a reflection of the stronger policy emphasis in the United Nations and among influential member states on various aspects of prevention and sustainability. However, another much discussed topic, handovers between peacekeeping missions and special political missions does not reflect in reported activities in any clearly discernable way.
These observations should benefit different users in different ways, the authors state, adding that certain observations and claims related to systematically collected data as an essential element of evidence-based decision-making merit special mentioning:
1. The large number of peace operations reporting on similar combinations of activities over long periods shows that the rule of law is an established component of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The effects of the so-called ‘push-back’ in the related areas of human rights and international criminal justice seem rather limited.
2. The increasingly multidimensional scope and application of the rule of law ought to reflect in long-term policies, planning, resourcing and evaluation. Among other things, more comprehensive measurement and evaluation mechanisms and methodologies need to be introduced, and new categories of rule of law professionals need to be systematically identified and such professionals trained to work in a wider range of areas.
3. The gap between rule of law norms and applications needs to be addressed to secure the political legitimacy of rule of law promotion and the sustainability of results so far. The political appetite among several influential UN member states for high-level normative initiatives may be limited, but new uses of data can help to demonstrate that there is consistent and uncontested practice in the Security Council and among peace operations of understanding and applying the concept in specific ways.
4. More knowledge is needed about the relationship between activities and goals, including new and global goals (for example, SDG 16, Just and peaceful societies). The inference of rule of law activities and outcomes to larger goals is known to be difficult, and several attempts have been justly criticized, but continued and intensified efforts to combine systematically collected data on activities and outcomes are essential for legitimacy, efficiency and effectiveness.
5. The accelerating proliferation of rule of law actors promoting similar goals makes analysis of United Nations operations and activities in isolation less meaningful and possibly misleading. Data and analysis need to be broadened and encompass the policies and activities of several international, regional and national actors, as well as a much wider range of political, social and legal outcomes.
6. While the overarching conclusion is that the scope of future rule of law data collection and analysis would need to be much expanded, perhaps beyond the current reach and capacity of any researcher or institution, the sixth claim is that much can be done today by more effectively combining and synthesizing existing data from multilateral actors such as the World Bank or the United Nations, governments, civil society organizations, think tanks and academic institutions.
7. Another important step towards making data accessible and useful would be the development of a comprehensive coding system for rule of law activities in UN peace operations. Such a coding system should ideally be developed with the greatest possible political and institutional buy-in, and in alignment with existing UN reporting functions, but more modest initiatives by one or a few institutions could play an important role by illustrating the utility of such systems and providing models.
