Peacekeeping Missions Strengthen the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict Settings

Posted by Raffi Gregorian
February 20, 2014
UN Peacekeepers Participate in a Briefing Before Deployment

On February 19, the United Nations Security Council met for an open debate on strengthening of the rule of law in conflict and post-conflict settings. The session addressed how the failure of legal institutions can lead to conflict and cause repeated cycles of violence, displacement, humanitarian crisis, and instability.  As Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo highlighted in her remarks to the Security Council, “respect for the rule of law is critical for the establishment of stable, secure, and democratic post-conflict societies.”

Today’s modern multidimensional UN peacekeeping operations are particularly well positioned to help countries struggling to emerge from conflict promote and strengthen rule of law institutions.  Staffed with police, justice, and corrections experts, multidimensional peacekeeping missions with rule of law tasks in their mandates provide front line support to strengthen judicial, transitional justice, and human rights institutions in post-conflict states. To learn more about the importance of the rule of law and UN’s role in strengthening it, watch this video.

About the Author: Raffi Gregorian serves as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs.



Eric J.
New Mexico, USA
February 25, 2014

This latest resolution in the UNSC on Syria with regards to humanitarian access has got me to thinking that in actualizing this on the ground in its implementation requires NGO's and relief org's the cover of international security in order to do their jobs effectively, as the recent exodus from Homs illustrates.

  US policy in regards to humanitarian intervention is "no boots on the ground" , but I don't think aid's going to get delivered otherwise....someone has to deliver it or a whole lot of folks are going to die from starvation alone. Susan Rice doesn't consider what Assad has and continues to do as "genocide"...well, I gotta push back publicy on's not a partisan thing , just a matter of different observational criteria I think...but if in the totality of what Assad has created doesn't meet her definition of Genocide, in every legal and physical manner, then my message to the US National Security Advisor to the President of the US is simply this; " If it ain't now, wait for it."

 When one considers the magnitude of the task, it would seem logical that the state of Syria would of neccessity become a de-facto UN protectorate in order to mandate a legal framework for supporing a political process that is yet to be realized as continual.

  You can't get there from here with Assad still in power. Fact. Not a hypothetical.

Nor can you get unapposed humanitarian access with him still in power.

  What I'm saying here isn't a matter of "frustration"...I'm directly addressing the administration's "talking points" in regards to what is really a "non argument"...first whatever the President had in mind when he was willing to use force to secure chemical weapons goes without saying that there in fact is "a military option" why "there is no military option" has become the daily mantra of spokespeople in the Whitehouse and State dept is beyong my understanding of the English language...I just wish you'all would get it strait for once...(chuckle). Because if just flat doesn't compute...LOL!!!

  Clearly "something must be done", and I haven't been offering my assesment on the pages of Dipnote over the years because I'm offering op-ed's with many complaint and no solutions attached...,  and until the President has one handed to him, I figure he needs all the help he can get to get the world up off its backside and into "regime replacement therapy" mode.

   If Assad won't go willingly do you drop a big rock on his head at this point and force a political transition to take shape in the aftermath, while making it abundantly clear to every autocrat on this planet that "You don't get to do this to your people and this is why." , as well as letting the Syrian military know we can continue to do this all day long round the clock if they want to be next.  

  At this stage of the conflict in Syria there is presently no "disincentive" placed upon the parties to conflict. Ergo: The killing continues unabated.

  Well, the US gov. targets terrorists by drone, and if we were to drop a conventially tipped ICBM in Assad's lap during his morning breakfast I guess we just used a bigger missile for a bonifide sponsor of terror waging genocide on his people...and it might be simply karma for all the scuds and barrel bombs he's ordered dropped on his fellow Syrians.

 We generally reserve the right to determining a country's leadership to its people, supporting democratic principal, but there are cause and precedent for exception, and implementing that exception unilaterally if need be in extremis, and the Syrian people are in exteme straits.

  Why is it America's job to do this? 

  Because if we don't, no one else will, and because we can.

  There, now you have a military solution tailor made to make a political solution inevitable, no go get the world off of this "stuck place" it finds itself in philosophicly, and get on with nation building...or rebuilding rather. Our's their's...ether way it requires a political's the getting there from here part that's got you'all so darn confuddled in your "complicated" reasoning....when there's nothing complicated about being witness to genocide,,,unless one fails to call it what it is while it is taking place.

EJ  2/25/14



Latest Stories

January 19, 2017

What We Got Right

With a new administration taking office this week, it is natural to assess the inheritance it will receive from the… more