Source: https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/human-rights-obligations-unmiss-sheltering-protection-sites/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:22:09+00:00

Document:
There are currently around 200 000 civilians sheltering in and around bases of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), who are being protected in accordance with its mission mandate.1 The establishment and defence of these sites have saved thousands of lives, and can be contrasted with the failures of the United Nations (UN) to protect people from genocide in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s. This article provides an overview of the development of UNMISS, how it has responded to the outbreak of civil war, and its potential legal responsibilities towards those sheltering on its protection of civilian (PoC) sites.
South Sudan came into existence in July 2011, after its people voted overwhelmingly for independence the previous January. UNMISS was created in the same month by the UN Security Council, which gave UNMISS a mandate to protect civilians under its Chapter VII powers. In June 2012, the Government of South Sudan argued that it would be “inappropriate” to renew the mandate under Chapter VII, as the government had taken responsibility for the safety and security of its own citizens. The government’s argument was rejected, but benchmarks for progress were agreed on towards an exit strategy for UNMISS. PoC has featured in all of UNMISS’s mission reports, although its initial focus was advocacy, maximising information flow, the provision of good offices and urging the government to deploy additional security forces when necessary.
UNMISS bases came under attack in several places, particularly in Jonglei State. Two peacekeeping soldiers and a civilian aid worker were killed at one UNMISS base, some bases were hit in crossfire and UNMISS helicopters were deliberately shot at on some occasions.8 In April 2014, the UNMISS base in Bor was stormed by an armed group who attacked the internally displaced persons (IDPs) inside the base with axes, handguns and automatic weapons. UNMISS troops eventually opened fire, and the attack was stopped after 48 IDPs and three attackers were killed.9 As a consequence of these various attacks, UNMISS evacuated two of its bases. At other bases, Ugandan armed forces provided protection by patrolling the outer perimeters.
It is increasingly recognised that international human rights law may be concurrently applicable with IHL.22 While there is continuing debate about the extent of its extraterritorial application, states are widely considered to have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for their provisions to anyone within their power or effective control, even if not situated within their territory.23 The UN is not a party to any human rights treaties, and its charter specifies that its provisions take precedence over all other international treaties.24 There is also no mechanism to judicially review the Security Council’s actions and the legal immunities that cover UN missions – which makes it extremely difficult to scrutinise their records for compliance with international human rights law.25 Nevertheless, a growing number of reports, resolutions and policy statements – such as the Human Rights Due Diligence Policy and Human Rights Up Front – do refer to the UN’s responsibility to protect human rights.
Various attempts have been made to solve the conflict through diplomatic means, backed up by the use of targeted sanctions and, in August 2015, both sides were persuaded to sign a peace agreement, which was welcomed by a Security Council presidential statement.35 The agreement has, however, broken down repeatedly and, by April 2016, there were still regular reports of continuing clashes.36 Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of IDPs are living in appalling, squalid conditions while being in the “effective control” of two UN missions. What rights and freedoms is the UN obliged to secure for them?
For protection to be effective, there must be a common understanding of who should be protected, from what, by whom, to what extent and until when. It is clearly impossible for peacekeeping soldiers deployed in a conflict or post-conflict environment to provide protection against all threats of violence to all people at all times, but the positive obligations in international human rights law do take account of these limitations. As discussed previously, national courts have already ruled that soldiers who abandoned civilians sheltering under their protection to the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, contributed to the violation of the right to life of the victims. There seems to be no reason, in principle, why the UN should not be under a similar obligation.
The “right to humanitarian assistance”, however, is less firmly based in international law, and there are both principled and practical reasons for maintaining the distinction between PoC and rights-based protection. While the “right of humanitarian access” is firmly established in both IHL and international human rights law, the delivery itself should be carried out by agencies bound by humanitarian principles – including neutrality, which could be compromised by too close an association with a UN mission with a PoC mandate.
Where the UN forcibly detains people, however – as is currently the case with UNMISS – the safeguards contained in international human rights law do appear to be of obvious relevance. It is not clear from UNMISS mission reports that detainees are being held in conformity with international standards, including basic protections against arbitrary detention and ill-treatment. While establishing an independent review mechanism and inspections regime for such detentions might have cost implications, it is difficult to see how the UN can justify failing to put such safeguards in place.
What’s in Blue (2015a) South Sudan: UNMISS and Sanctions Briefings and Draft Sanctions Resolution, 24 August; Security Council Report (2015) Protection of Civilians. Cross-cutting Report, May, p. 23.
(2012) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2012/140, 7 March; (2011) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2011/678, 2 November.
Human Rights Watch (2013) “They are Killing Us”: Abuses Against Civilians in South Sudan’s Pibor County; International Crisis Group (2011) South Sudan: Compounding Instability in Unity State; International Crisis Group (2009) Jonglei’s Tribal Conflicts: Countering Insecurity in South Sudan. See also (2011) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2011/678, op. cit.; (2013a) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2013/366, 20 June; and (2013b) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2013/651, 8 November.
For details, see (2014a) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2014/158, 6 March; and International Crisis Group (2014a) South Sudan: A Civil War by Any Other Name. Crisis Group Africa Report No. 217, Brussels: ICG.
Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/2014/26, 15 December 2014.
What’s in Blue (2015a) op. cit.
International Crisis Group (2014a) op. cit., pp. 29–30.
(2014a) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2014/158, op. cit., para. 18.
(2014b) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2014/537, 24 July. See also International Crisis Group (2014) South Sudan: Jonglei – “We have Always been at War”, Africa Report N°221, Brussels: ICG.
(2014c) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2014/708, 30 September.
Lilly, Damian (2014) Protection of Civilians Sites: A New Type of Displacement Settlement?, Humanitarian Exchange, 62.
Médecins Sans Frontières (2014) ‘The Struggle to Protect Civilians in South Sudan’, Available at: <http://www.msf.org/article/struggle-protect-civilians-south-sudan> [Accessed 13 January 2015].
Security Council Resolution 2155 of 27 May 2014.
(2014d) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2014/821, 18 November 2014.
(2015a) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2015/118, 17 February 2015.
(2015b) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2015/296, 29 April 2015.
Mahmut Kaya v Turkey, Appl. No. 22535/93, Judgment 28 March 2000, para. 86.
(1992), General Comment 31, Article 10 (forty-fourth session), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 33, paras 15 and 18.
Armed Activity on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of ICJ, 19 December 2005.
Al-Skeini and Others v. UK, Appl. No. 55721/07, Judgment (Grand Chamber) 7 July 2011.
Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945), 1 UNTS XVI, Articles 25 and 103.
Behrami and Behrami v. France (Appl. No. 71412/01) 31 May 2007 (Grand Chamber) Decision on Admissibility and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (Appl. No. 78166/01), (Grand Chamber) Decision on Admissibility, 2 May 2007.
Mothers of Srebrenica v. the Netherlands (2014) ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:8748 (The Hague District Court). Mukeshimana-Ngulinzira and Others v. Belgium and Others, First Instance Judgment, RG No 04/4807/A, 07/15547/A, ILDC 1604 (BE 2010) 8 December 2010, Court of First Instance.
Secretary General’s Bulletin, Observance by UN Forces of International Humanitarian Law, 6 August 1999, ST/SGB/1999/13.
(2015a) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2015/118, op. cit.
(2015b) Report of the Secretary-General on South Sudan, S/2015/296, op. cit.
UN News Centre (2015) South Sudan: UN Alleges ‘Widespread’ Human Rights Abuses Amid Uptick in Fighting, 30 June 2015. The report stated that “according to the testimony of 115 victims and eyewitnesses from the Unity state counties of Rubkona, Guit, Koch, Leer and Mayom, SPLA fighters also abducted and sexually abused numerous women and girls, some of whom were reportedly burnt alive in their dwellings”.
UN News Centre (2015) op. cit., and UNICEF Media Centre (2015) Unspeakable Violence Against Children in South Sudan – UNICEF chief, 17 June.
Ibid. The Head of the Mission, Secretary-General’s Special Representative, Ellen Margrethe Løj, stated: “Revealing the truth of what happened offers the best hope for ensuring accountability for such terrible violence and ending the cycle of impunity that allows these abuses to continue,” and she urged South Sudanese authorities to allow UN human rights investigators to access the sites of the alleged atrocities.
Statement by the President of the UN Security Council on South Sudan, S/PRST/2015/16, 28 August 2015.
What’s in Blue (2015b) South Sudan: Briefing on Developments since Peace Agreement, 3 September. See also Foreign Policy (2016) South Sudan’s Next Civil War is Starting, 22 January; Reuters (2016) South Sudan’s Opposition Leader Machar to Return to Juba in Mid-April, 7 April.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993. See also Maus, Sylvia (2011) Human Rights in Peacekeeping Missions. In Heintz, Hans-Joachim and Zwitter, Andrej (eds) International Law and Humanitarian Assistance. Berlin: Springer, p. 112.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.