00181215

open access

Version of Record

コクレン ヘイワ イジ カツドウ ニオケル ジエイ ゲンソク ノ サイケントウ コクレン ホゴ グン UNPROFOR エノ ブリョク コウシ ヨウニン ケツギ オ テガカリ トシテ

UNPROFOR and the Self-Defence Principle

Japanese (日本語)

国際協力論集

3(2)

61-85

神戸大学大学院国際協力研究科

1995-12

2007-04-18

This paper aims at reconsidering the "Self-Defence Principle" of the U.N. peace-keeping operations in the post-Cold War era, by reference to the U. N. Security Council resolutions authorizing the U. N. Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to use the force. The troops of the U. N. peace-keeping cannot use weapons except for self- defence. This "Self-Defence Principle" is one of the essential characters of the U. N. peace-keeping operations, which are criteria for distinguishing peace-keeping from peace-enforcement. This principle includes two concepts; one is the concept of "self­defence" in stricto sensu, which implies that peace-keeping forces are provided with weapons of a defensive character. The other is one in lato sensu, which is defined as including resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent a force from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council. Since the Cold War era, the practice of the U. N. peace-keeping operations has confirmed this definition. In the post-Cold War era, the mis­sions of U. N. peace-keeping forces have expanded into the new ones in the intra­state conflicts, especially the protection of humanitarian assistances. This en­largement of the mandate has been in­volved with the growing possibility of the use of force by the U. N. peace­keeping forces, as the substance of the "self-defence" in lato sensu varies ac­cording to the mandate of the U. N. peace-keeping forces. The protection of the delivery of humanitarian relief against the attacks of paramilitary units would be very dangerous mandate, so that the U. N. peace-keeping forces have much more opportunity to use the force based on the "self-defence". So far, it is intended that the use of force by the U. N. peace-keeping forces- is justified by constructing the concept of "self-defence" broadly, rather than under the Chapter VII of the U. N. Charter, except, some examples. Moreover, the duties of the U. N. peace-keeping forces should be performed on the premise that their security and freedom of movement for all their missions be assured. The recent practice shows that there is a tendency to give priority to the principles of the freedom of movement and the self-defence over the principles of the consent and the impartiality as the more U. N. peacekeeping operations are involved with the intra-state conflicts. Thus, it follows that both the peace-keeping operations with broader mandate in internal conflicts and the peace-enforcement operations have the common aim : the maintenance and restoration of the international peace and security. In conclusion, the enlargement of the mandate of the U. N. peace-keeping operations tends to blur the distinction between peace-keeping and peace­enforcement through the wider interpretation of the "self-defence". In order to keep such a distinction, it is necessary to restrain the use of force and to interpret the "Self-Defence Principle" as strictly as possible in the U. N. peace-keeping operations.

紀要論文