Book contents
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Human Rights Protection in International Organizations: An Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Framework
- 3 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Fighting Off a Reputational Crisis
- 4 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Making Use of Global Legal Pluralism
- 5 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Learning from the Early Mover
- 6 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Judicial Lawmaking by the Court of Justice of the EU
- Notes on Chapters 3–6
- 7 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights: When Protectors Become Perpetrators
- 8 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Learning How to Protect the Rights of Detainees
- 9 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights and the Right Not to Be Enslaved: Domestic Channels for NATO Reform
- 10 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: The OSCE and Council of Europe as Advocates for the Rights of Detainees
- Notes on Chapters 7–10
- 11 Human Rights Protection in World Bank Lending: Following the Lead of the US Congress
- 12 Human Rights Protection in IMF Lending: Organizational Inertia and the Limits of Like-Minded Institution-Building
- Notes on Chapters 11–12
- 13 The Rise of Human Rights Protection in International Organizations – Results and Theoretical Implications
- Book part
- Index
- References
8 - UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Learning How to Protect the Rights of Detainees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Protecting the Individual from International Authority
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Human Rights Protection in International Organizations: An Introduction
- 2 Conceptual Framework
- 3 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Fighting Off a Reputational Crisis
- 4 UN Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Making Use of Global Legal Pluralism
- 5 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Subsistence Rights: Learning from the Early Mover
- 6 EU Sanctions Policy and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Judicial Lawmaking by the Court of Justice of the EU
- Notes on Chapters 3–6
- 7 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights: When Protectors Become Perpetrators
- 8 UN Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: Learning How to Protect the Rights of Detainees
- 9 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Bodily Integrity Rights and the Right Not to Be Enslaved: Domestic Channels for NATO Reform
- 10 NATO Peacekeeping and the Protection of Due Process Rights: The OSCE and Council of Europe as Advocates for the Rights of Detainees
- Notes on Chapters 7–10
- 11 Human Rights Protection in World Bank Lending: Following the Lead of the US Congress
- 12 Human Rights Protection in IMF Lending: Organizational Inertia and the Limits of Like-Minded Institution-Building
- Notes on Chapters 11–12
- 13 The Rise of Human Rights Protection in International Organizations – Results and Theoretical Implications
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Protecting the Individual from International AuthorityHuman Rights in International Organizations, pp. 186 - 202Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Amnesty International 1994. ‘Amnesty International Report 1994 – Somalia’. 1 January. www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a9f748.html (18 October 2015).Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2000. ‘Document – Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): Setting the Standard – UNMIK and KFOR’s Response to the Violence in Mitrovica’. 13 March. AI Index EUR 70/13/00.Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2001. ‘Document – Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): Amnesty International Calls for an End to Executive Orders of Detention’. 3 August. AI Index EUR 70/017/2001.Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2002. ‘Document – Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): No Impunity for the International Community’. 18 June. AI Index EUR 70/005/2002.Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2004. ‘The Apparent Lack of Accountability of International Peace-Keeping Forces in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina’. April. AI Index EUR 05/002/2004.Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2006. ‘Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro). United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK): Briefing to the Human Rights Committee’. 87th Session, July. AI Index EUR 70/007/2006.Google Scholar
Amnesty International 2012. ‘Proposed New Rules for Detainees in International Military Operations Fall Far Short of Human Rights Standards’. Public Statement at the ‘Copenhagen Process’ meeting, 16 October. AI Index IOR 50/002/2012.Google Scholar
Aust, Helmut 2015. ‘The UN Human Rights due diligence policy: An effective mechanism against complicity of peacekeeping forces?’. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 20(1): 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breitegger, Alexander 2009. ‘Sacrificing the effectiveness of the European Convention on Human Rights on the altar of the effective functioning of peace support operations: A critique of Behrami & Saramati and Al Jedda’. International Community Law Review 11: 155–183.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Simon 2002. Justice under International Administration: Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan. New York: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Simon 2009. ‘Unaccountable? The United Nations, emergency powers, and the rule of law’. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42(5): 1509–1541.Google Scholar
CoE (Council of Europe) 1999. ‘Council of Europe’s Contribution to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo’. Committee of Ministers, CM/Inf(99)48, 23 July.Google Scholar
CoE (Council of Europe) 2002. ‘Kosovo: The Human Rights Situation and the Fate of Persons Displaced from their Homes’. Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights for the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CommDH(2002)11, Strasbourg, 16 October.Google Scholar
CoE (Council of Europe) 2004. ‘Draft Opinion on Human Rights in Kosovo: Possible Establishment of a Review Mechanism’. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion no. 280, CDL-DI (2004)004, Strasbourg, 1 October.Google Scholar
De Brabandere, Eric 2010. ‘Human rights accountability of international administrations: Theory and practice in East Timor’, in Wouters, , Brems, , Smis, and Schmitt, (eds.), Accountability for Human Rights Violations by International Organisations. Antwerp: Intersentia pp. 331–354.Google Scholar
ICRC (International Committee for the Red Cross) 2003. ‘Expert Meeting on Multilateral Peace Operations, Report’. Geneva, 11–12 December.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Florian and Mégret, Frédéric 2005. ‘Fostering human rights accountability: An ombudsperson for the United Nations?’ Global Governance 11(1): 43–63.Google Scholar
Knoll, Bernhard. 2008. ‘Rights without remedies: The European Court’s failure to close the human rights gap in Kosovo’. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 68: 431–451.Google Scholar
Marshall, David and Inglis, Shelley 2003. ‘The disempowerment of human rights-based justice in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo’. Harvard Human Rights Journal 16: 95–146.Google Scholar
Mégret, Frédéric and Hoffmann, Florian 2003. ‘The UN as a human rights violator? Some reflections on the United Nations changing human rights responsibilities’. Human Rights Quarterly 25(2): 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momirov, Aleksandar 2012. ‘Local impact of “UN Accountability” under international law: The rise and fall of UNMIK’s Human Rights Advisory Panel’. International Peacekeeping 19(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Mujezinović Larsen, Kjetil 2008. ‘Attribution of conduct in peace operations: The “ultimate authority and control” test’. European Journal of International Law 19(3): 509–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OIK (Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo) 2001a. ‘Special Report No. 3. The Conformity of Deprivations of Liberty under “Executive Orders” with Recognised International Standards’. 29 June.Google Scholar
OIK (Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo) 2001b. ‘Special Report No. 4. Certain Aspects of UNMIK Regulation No. 2001/18 on the Establishment of a Detention Review Commission for Extra-judicial Detentions Based on Executive Orders’. 25 August.Google Scholar
OIK (Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo) 2002. ‘Second Annual Report 2001–2002’. Addressed to SRSG Michael Steiner, Pristina, 10 July.Google Scholar
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) 1999. ‘Decision No. 305, PC Journal No. 237, Agenda item 2, Permanent Council, PC.DEC/305’. 1 July.Google Scholar
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) 2001. ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System’. Mission in Kosovo, Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law, October. www.osce.org/kosovo/23307?download=true (18 October 2015).Google Scholar
Oswald, Bruce 2011. ‘Detention by United Nations peacekeepers: Searching for definition and categorisation’. Journal of International Peacekeeping 15(1–2): 119–151.Google Scholar
Pacquée, Didier and Dewulf, Steven. 2006. ‘International territorial administrations and the rule of law: The case of Kosovo’. Essex Human Rights Review 4(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Stahn, Carsten 2008. The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration. Versailles to Iraq and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trenkov-Wermuth, Calin 2010. United Nations Justice: Legal and Judicial Reform in Governance Operations. New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
UN DPKO (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations) 2000. ‘United Nations Civilian Police Principles and Guidelines’. 15 November. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/GLINES_UN_CIVPOL_2000.pdf (18 October 2015).Google Scholar
UN DPKO (United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations) 2009. Human Rights Standards in Arrest and Detention. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
United Nations Office in Vienna 1994. ‘UN Criminal Justice Standards for Peacekeeping Police (“Bluebook”)’. Vienna: United Nations. www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/UN_criminal_justice_standards_for_UN_police.pdf (20 October 2015).Google Scholar
UN Human Rights Council 2006. ‘Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee (Kosovo)’. UN Doc. CCPR/C/UNK/CO/1. Geneva, 14 August.Google Scholar
UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) 2000. ‘Regulation 2000/38 on the Establishment of the Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo’. UN Doc. UNMIK/REG/2000/38. 30 June.Google Scholar
UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) 2001. ‘Regulation on the Establishment of a Detention Review Commission for Extra-Judicial Detentions based on Executive Orders’. UN Doc. UNMIK/REG/2001/18. 25 August.Google Scholar
UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) 2006. ‘Regulation on the Establishment of the Human Rights Advisory Panel’. UN Doc. UNMIK/REG/2006/12. 23 March.Google Scholar
UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) 2009. ‘Administrative Directive on Implementing UNMIK/REG/2006/12’. UN Doc. UNMIK/DIR/2009/1. 17 October.Google Scholar
UNODC/DPKO (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime/Department of Peacekeeping Operations) 2009. ‘United Nations Criminal Justice Standards for United Nations Police’. Vienna: United Nations. www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/UN_criminal_justice_standards_for_UN_police.pdf (18 October 2015).Google Scholar
UN Secretary-General 1999. ‘Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the “Observance by United Nations forces of international humanitarian law”’. UN Doc. ST/SGB 1999/13.Google Scholar
Visoka, Gezim 2012. ‘The “Kafkaesque accountability” of international governance in Kosovo’. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 6(2): 189–212.Google Scholar
Winkler, Thomas 2010. ‘The Copenhagen process on detainees: A necessity’. Nordic Journal of International Law 78: 489–498.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by