Whose peace? Local ownership and UN peacebuilding

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the participation of national actors in United Nations peace operations, reflecting what has become a near orthodox commitment to ‘local ownership.’ Advocates of local ownership assert that it: (1) increases the legitimacy of UN peacebuilding efforts; (2) increases the sustainability of peacebuilding activities after the departure of the UN; and (3) increases democratic governance in post-conflict states. While such thinking about local ownership has informed UN peacebuilding policy to a large extent, the UN has, to date, assumed these positive benefits without critically examining the causal mechanisms that allegedly produce them, specifying the conditions under which this correlation holds, or providing convincing evidence for these assertions. Moreover, exactly what local ownership is, what is being owned, and who local ‘owners’ are remain unclear. Indeed a closer examination of ownership’s relation with legitimacy, sustainability, and democratization reveal a plethora of contradictions that imply that local ownership may in fact decrease the UN’s ability to deliver peacekeeping results. Crucially, however, the UN persists in adopting a local ownership approach to peacebuilding, suggesting that it does so because it is normatively appropriate rather than operationally effective.

The Copenhagen principles on the handling of detainees: implications for the procedural regulation of internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

The United Nations and the African Union: Assessing a partnership for peace in Darfur

In Resolution 1556, the Security Council, with the conflict in Darfur clearly in mind, determined that the ‘situation in Sudan constitutes a threat to international peace and security and to stability in the region’. This article focuses on the response by the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, and the African Union to the Darfur conflict. It begins by exploring the role of peacekeeping operations and regional arrangements or agencies in the overarching architecture of international peace and security. Having laid this frame of reference, it then looks at the modalities of peacekeeping in Darfur. These operations began with the African Union acting in isolation but have transitioned to an increasingly important role being played by the United Nations and a hybrid peacekeeping presence. Finally, this article asks whether, assuming that a legally dispositive conclusion can be drawn that genocide has taken place in Darfur since the outbreak of hostilities there in 2003, there exists a legal justification, or even obligation, for non-compliance by states with the sanctions regime established by Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1591. This regime of sanctions has played an important part in the Security Council's approach to Darfur but has been, unfortunately, left largely unexamined from the standpoint of international legality.

Storm prediction research and its application to the oil/gas industry

The accurate prediction of storms is vital to the oil and gas sector for the management of their operations. An overview of research exploring the prediction of storms by ensemble prediction systems is presented and its application to the oil and gas sector is discussed. The analysis method used requires larger amounts of data storage and computer processing time than other more conventional analysis methods. To overcome these difficulties eScience techniques have been utilised. These techniques potentially have applications to the oil and gas sector to help incorporate environmental data into their information systems

Orde Wingate and the Theory behind the Chindit Operations: Some Recent Findings

This short paper discusses some of the theory behind the Chindit operations in Burma of 1943-44, drawing parallels between Wingate's theoretical concepts post 1990s concepts of 'manoeuvre warfare.'

MI(R,)G(R) and British Covert Operations, 1939-42

The Military Intelligence (Research) Department of the British War Office was tasked in 1940 with encouraging and supporting armed resistance in occupied Europe and the Axis-controlled Middle East. The major contention of this paper is that, in doing so, MI(R) performed a key role in British strategy in 1940-42 and in the development of what are now known as covert operations. MI(R) developed an organic, but coherent doctrine for such activity which was influential upon the Special Operations Executive (SOE) and its own sub-branch, G(R), which applied this doctrine in practice in East Africa and the Middle East in 1940-41. It was also here that a number of key figures in the development of covert operations and special forces first cut their teeth, the most notable being Major Generals Colin Gubbins and Orde Wingate.