Definition and legal classification of peacekeeping forces
Peacekeeping forces (English: peacekeeping forces or peacekeeping troops) refer to military or police units deployed on behalf of international organizations or within the framework of multilateral agreements to ensure peace and monitor ceasefire agreements. The main objective of peacekeeping forces is the stabilization of conflict regions and the support for the restoration and maintenance of peace. The legal basis as well as the deployment of peacekeeping forces are closely linked to international law, particularly the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international agreements.
Legal basis for the deployment of peacekeeping forces
Charter of the United Nations
The deployment of peacekeeping forces is generally based on the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter). In particular, Chapter VI (‘The Pacific Settlement of Disputes’) and Chapter VII (‘Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression’) are relevant for the legal framework:
- Chapter VI: These are peacekeeping measures carried out with the consent of the parties to the conflict (“Peacekeeping”).
- Chapter VII: Allows the use of coercive measures if there is a threat to world peace or international security (“Peace Enforcement”).
Under Articles 24 et seq. of the UN Charter, the United Nations Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security and can issue mandates for the deployment of peacekeeping forces.
Legal relationship to state territories and other actors
Peacekeeping forces are generally deployed only with the consent of the affected state. This consent forms a central legal basis for the presence of foreign troops on sovereign territory and is usually specified in a so-called “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA), which regulates the rights and obligations of the deployed forces as well as the legal framework.
International and regional organizations
In addition to the UN, other organizations such as the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the African Union (AU), or the Organization of American States (OAS) can also deploy peacekeeping forces. The legal basis for these forces is derived from their respective founding treaties and the relevant decisions of each organization.
Types and mandates of peacekeeping forces
Classical peacekeeping
Classical peacekeeping is characterized by the following features:
- Neutrality: Peacekeeping forces act impartially and do not actively mediate, but instead monitor existing agreements.
- Consent of the parties to the conflict: The troops are deployed only with the consent of the states involved.
- Non-use of force: Armed force is permitted solely for self-defense and for protecting third parties.
Legally, this model is based on contractual freedom and international law, particularly on the principle of non-intervention and respect for sovereignty.
Peace Enforcement (peace-making measures)
Expanded robust mandates (“peace enforcement operations”) allow the use of force beyond pure self-defense, up to and including the imposition of peace measures. The Security Council may, pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorize such actions if peace and international security are threatened. The legal requirements generally include the existence of a Security Council resolution and, depending on the mandate, the consensus of the troop-contributing countries.
Multinational missions and hybrid operations
There are now numerous hybrid missions in which various international organizations deploy peacekeeping forces together (e.g., joint missions by the UN and AU). The legal basis for these missions often arises from expressly concluded joint mandates and agreements between the organizations as well as with host states.
Jurisdictions, immunities, and legal status
Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA)
The legal relationship between peacekeeping forces and the host state is governed by SOFAs. These typically regulate:
- Legal status and immunities of soldiers and civilian personnel
- Jurisdiction for offenses committed by contingent members
- Command structure and use of weapons
In this context, the host state regularly transfers certain sovereign rights (limiting its own jurisdiction), especially with regard to official acts performed by deployed personnel.
Immunities
Peacekeeping forces enjoy immunity under international law from prosecution and administrative processes in the host country, insofar as official acts are concerned. For private offenses, criminal prosecution by the sending country may be provided. UN organizations and related mission members are also exempt from legal proceedings in the host state within certain limits. The scope of immunity is defined by international treaties and the relevant SOFA.
Liability and accountability
Generally, the deploying organization (e.g., the UN) is liable for damage caused during the activities of peacekeeping forces. In the case of individual offenses, personal accountability under international criminal law remains. Since the “Behrami” and “Saramati” cases (ECtHR 2007), the International Court of Justice has also acknowledged limited direct liability of the United Nations.
Legal challenges and criticism
Interference with state sovereignty
The deployment of peacekeeping forces always constitutes an intervention in the sovereignty of the host state. Therefore, prior consent and an explicit legal basis under international law are indispensable. Unilateral deployments without a UN mandate or consent are generally considered violations of international law.
Exceeding mandates and liability issues
If individual soldiers or units exceed their mandate, the question of liability and disciplinary sanctions arises. Responsibility may lie on both an individual and organizational level.
Legal consequences for those involved
Deployments as part of peacekeeping missions can also affect the legal status and fundamental rights of the affected population—for example, when curfews or expropriations are implemented as part of the mission. The legality of such measures is regularly reviewed according to international treaty standards and human rights instruments.
Conclusion
Peacekeeping forces are an essential instrument of the international security architecture. Their deployment relates to a complex international legal framework that includes aspects of sovereignty, inter-state treaties, immunities, liability, and human rights responsibility. The legal structuring and oversight of these missions are carried out in close coordination within the international community to safeguard the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, such as peace, security, and human rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who bears legal responsibility for the actions of peacekeeping forces in the area of operations?
Legal responsibility for the actions of peacekeeping forces is complex and arises from both international law and national legal systems. In principle, peacekeeping forces are subject to the mandate and authority of the deploying international organization, usually the United Nations (UN) or regional organizations such as the European Union (EU) or the African Union (AU). The mandate for each mission is generally legally regulated by a Security Council resolution (for UN missions) and sets out the scope, tasks, and powers of the forces. While carrying out their duties, peacekeeping personnel often enjoy immunity from the host country’s jurisdiction, which is also supported internationally by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. However, for criminal or disciplinary misconduct, soldiers are usually subject to the laws of their country of origin, unless the mandate stipulates exceptions. In cases of serious violations, such as breaches of international humanitarian law (for example, war crimes), international jurisdiction, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), may also be competent depending on the circumstances.
On what legal basis can peacekeeping forces be deployed in a foreign state?
The lawful deployment of peacekeeping forces in a foreign country essentially depends on the consent of the affected state and/or a mandate of the UN Security Council. The principle of state sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs pursuant to Art. 2(7) of the UN Charter is decisive; thus, a peacekeeping mission without the consent of the host state would be illegal under international law unless it is authorized by a Security Council mandate. If a resolution of the Security Council exists that invokes Chapter VII of the Charter, forces can be deployed even without the consent of the affected state, provided a threat to peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression has been established. The legal basis then lies in the UN’s collective security system. For regional organizations, their own statutes must also be observed, although UN authorization is generally still required.
To what extent do international humanitarian law and human rights conventions apply to peacekeeping forces?
Peacekeeping forces operate fundamentally within the framework of international humanitarian law (in particular, the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols) and are also bound by relevant human rights treaties. International humanitarian law applies to all parties to an armed conflict, including international troops. It should be noted that international organizations such as the UN are not themselves parties to the Geneva Conventions, but their member states undertake to apply the relevant provisions to their contingents. Furthermore, human rights principles play a role because deployments regularly occur on the condition that both the rights of civilians and human dignity are respected. In the case of human rights violations, and subject to immunity, national or international prosecution applies.
What legal mechanisms exist for the monitoring and accountability of peacekeeping forces?
Multiple legal mechanisms exist for the monitoring and accountability of peacekeeping forces. In addition to the internal disciplinary procedures of the deploying states or organizations, the reporting and oversight obligation to the deploying body (e.g., the UN Security Council) plays a key role. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the deploying organization and the host state also often includes specific provisions regarding legal jurisdiction, investigations, and prosecution. For particularly serious offenses, such as grave human rights violations or war crimes, international criminal courts such as the International Criminal Court may have competence. Moreover, independent investigative missions or commissions are regularly established to clarify facts and establish responsibilities.
In which cases does the immunity of peacekeeping personnel lapse?
The immunity of peacekeeping personnel is not absolute and can be lifted in certain cases. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and country-specific SOFAs stipulate that immunity mainly covers official acts. For acts committed outside the scope of official duties or for particularly grave offenses—especially crimes under international criminal law (e.g., genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity)—the UN or the deploying organization can waive immunity to allow for national or international prosecution. The decision generally lies with the respective international organization and requires careful legal review.
Are peacekeeping forces subject to local laws of the host country?
Peacekeeping forces operate within clearly defined mandates and are primarily subject to international law as well as the provisions of the relevant SOFA or other bilateral agreements. In general, they enjoy functional immunity from the jurisdiction of the host state for all actions taken in connection with the mission. However, this does not exclude compliance with basic local rules—for example, traffic regulations or health laws—as long as these are compatible with their mandate. In the case of breaches or offenses committed outside of duty, depending on the specific agreement, jurisdiction may lie with either the host state or the sending state.
How does the role of peacekeeping forces differ in a legal context from that of regular armed forces?
Peacekeeping forces are not regular armed forces in the sense of combat troops, but operate on behalf of an international organization and on the basis of a specific mandate. This mandate defines the objective, scope, and limitations of their powers of deployment in detail and is usually limited to peacekeeping and conflict prevention. In contrast to national armed forces, which fundamentally exercise the right of self-defense of their own state, peacekeeping forces act strictly within the limits of their assigned tasks—for instance, protecting civilians, monitoring ceasefires, or supporting humanitarian aid. Legally, peacekeeping forces enjoy a special protective status, which may vary depending on the mission and the applicable international legal basis.
