Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post

The choice of language in the HRW report is interesting - because it mixes "peacekeeping" with Chapter VII; from David's link:



Traditionally, peacekeeping has been under Chapter VI of the Charter; whereas peace enforcement has been under Chapter VII of the Charter. Chapter VI puts the blue hats under peacetime rules of engagement; Chapter VII puts them under wartime rules of engagement.
UN peacekeeping has evolved considerably over the last 15 years or so. Since UNAMSIL in 1999, almost all new PKOs have been authorized under Chapter VII to use force to uphold all or part of their mandates (which isn't to say they do so consistently).

Of the nearly 98,000 troops and police currently deployed to PKOs, 97% are serving under Chapter VII mandates.

The ROE for Chapter VII PKOs are certainly stronger than Chapter VI, but aren't quite 'wartime' - there are still some significant limitations for offensive ops. That said, a lot of depends on how the civilian mission leadership and military commanders on the ground choose to interpret them.

It's worth noting though that ONUC went to war against Tshombe's Katangan separatists in the 1960s under a mandate that didn't specify either chapter of the UN Charter. It just said 'go do it.'

Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post

"Humanitarian interventionists" (to include HRW and Samantha Power) have a tendency to sugarcoat their interventions; so as to distinguish them from operations by those bad "military interventionists".

Regards

Mike
I think that's painting with too broad a brush. No question there are some that don't understand military ops whatsoever, but there are others who do (Marc Garlasco, for example).