Jeremy Farrall

Holding the United Nations Security Council accountable for human rights violations through domestic and regional courts: a case of ‘be careful what you wish for'?

A. The Legal Framework The author has previously argued extensively that t e competence of the United Nations Security Council (hereinafter the Security Council) to adopt measures in the interest of international peace and security is not unlimited u n er international law. 1 In addition, she has argued that due to the absence of a centralised international judiciary that has explicit competence to review the legality of Security Counc il decisions, domestic and regional courts will increasingly be confronted with request s to this effect in an era where international organs frequently take decisions with direct consequences for the rights of individuals. In particular, such review may occur in cases wher e domestic or regional courts are confronted with challenges to domestic o r regional measures that implement Security Council resolutions in a manner that resul ts in the infringement of individual human rights. When reviewing these implementation m easures, the domestic or regional courts may also be incidentally confronted with the question of whether the Security Council itself acted in accordance with internation al law when adopting the decision that ultimately resulted in the measure under debate. 3

Recurring Dilemmas in a Recurring Conflict: Evaluating the UN Mission in Liberia (2003–2006)

This article applies Diehl & Druckman’s peace operation evaluation framework to the activities of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) during the Liberian transitional peace process (2003-2006). It finds that in general UNMIL performed strongly during the transitional period, particularly in relation to the core mission goals of violence abatement, conflict containment, conflict settlement and organizational effectiveness. UNMIL’s achievements were less clear and less pronounced in relation to the more complex areas of non-traditional and peacebuilding mission goals. The article also provides critical reflections on the framework for evaluating peace operations, arguing that it is difficult to escape the politics that influence the activities of peacekeeping and peacebuilding.

Should the United Nations Security Council Leave It To the Experts? The Governance and Accountability of UN Sanctions Monitoring

Introduction: The chapters in this collection use the example of United Nations sanctions as a means to explore the questions of accountability and governance that arise when legal norms are applied with cross-boundary effect. The boundaries in question are both physical, in the sense of clearly delineated national borders, as well as conceptual, as with the traditional distinctions that are drawn between the domains of public and private law, and between international and domestic law.

Leveraging diplomatic power and influence on the UN Security Council: the case of Australia

ABSTRACT There is scepticism about whether a state like Australia can secure its interests and exercise influence on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). A case study of Australia’s experience as a UNSC member in 2013–2014 shows that it directly influenced UNSC decision-making in a number of ways: first, in the response to the MH17 incident; second, pushing forward UNSC practice through the first-ever resolutions on both ‘small arms and light weapons’ and police in peacekeeping; and third, as chair of three sanctions committees, influencing the decision-making environment towards greater transparency. While Australia did not achieve all its objectives, it made its views well-known. A second case study demonstrates that Australia’s opportunities to influence UNSC decision-making are not limited to stints of membership. Australia was able to achieve many of its foreign policy objectives in East Timor in 1999 through strategically engaging with key UNSC players through an informal diplomatic grouping: the Core Group on East Timor. Both case studies show that Australia’s diplomatic engagement with the UNSC is desirable, necessary and strategic, whether or not it is a current or prospective member.

Securing the Rule of Law through un Peace Operations in Liberia

In this article, we examine how the tension between justice and force informs the efforts of the United Nations (un) to promote the rule of law through its peace operations. We begin by showing how the un’s discourse of ‘securing peace’ has three antagonistic propositions holding it together in a combustible way. The propositions are: first, peace contains the force of war; second, law contains the force of peace; and third, justice contains the force of law. With the antagonistic arrangement of these propositions in mind, we then show how the un has developed two contrasting approaches to promoting the rule of law through its peace operations, which we describe as its ‘aspirational’ and ‘operational’ visions of the rule of law. The aspirational vision combines the need for an effective and accountable security sector with a focus on the substantive requirements of justice, thus aspiring to bring all three propositions together in the rule of law. By contrast, the un’s operational vision prioritizes security, stability and order, thus losing sight of the importance of justice. We demonstrate this divergence between the un’s aspirational and operational visions through a study of the un’s peace operations in Liberia between 1993 and 2014, with a focus on the rule of law promotion activities of the un Mission in Liberia (unmil). We argue that the un’s efforts to promote the rule of law through its peace operations risk establishing the conditions for a state of tyranny if they lose sight of the antagonistic but co-dependent relationship between justice and force. The challenge is to prioritize the requirements of force and justice at the same time. While this will not resolve their antagonistic relationship, it has the virtue of acknowledging their co-dependency as an uncomfortable yet unavoidable condition of a state based on the rule of law.

Introduction: Filling or Falling between the Cracks? Law’s Potential

This is the introduction to the first volume of the new Cambridge University Press series Connecting International law with Public law.The first volume is titled Sanctions, Accountability and Governance in a Globalised World and is edited by the authors of this introduction and explores fascinating questions that arise when legal regimes collide. Until now, international and public law have mainly overlapped in discussions on how international law is implemented domestically. While there is some scholarship developing in the area of global administrative law, and some scholars have touched upon the principles relevant to both disciplines, the publications to date contain only a subset of the concept underpinning this book. This first book aims to broaden understanding of how public and international law intersect. It is unique in consciously bringing together public and international lawyers to consider and engage in each other’s scholarship. What can public lawyers bring to international law and what can international lawyers bring to public law? What are the common interests? Which legal principles cross the international law/domestic public law divide and which principles are not transferable? What tensions emerge from bringing the disciplines together? Are these tensions inherent in law as a discipline as a whole or are they peculiar to law’s sub disciplines? Can we ultimately only fill in or fall between the cracks, or is there some greater potential for law in the engagement?

The Role of International Law in Rebuilding Societies after Conflict: Introduction

Stephens‘ text goes a long way in demonstrating the changing lay of the land. Indeed, perhaps it may be a harbinger of change to come.20 Stephens shows that there is more going on in international environmental dispute settlement than even many keen observers of the subject of international environmental law might realise. His book is an impressive blend of not only jurisprudence and analytical insight, but also a realistic nuts and bolts explanation of institutional and systemic frameworks. Another reviewer has already opined that ̳[u]ndoubtedly, this book will become part of required reading for all those interested in international environmental law and adjudication‘.21 I could not agree more.