Practice Relating to Rule 33. Personnel and Objects Involved in a Peacekeeping Mission

Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
The preamble to the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel states:
The States Parties to this Convention [are] deeply concerned over the growing number of deaths and injuries resulting from deliberate attacks against United Nations and associated personnel and [bear] in mind that attacks against, or other mistreatment of, personnel who act on behalf of the United Nations are unjustifiable and unacceptable, by whomsoever committed. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, preamble.
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
According to Article 1(a)(i) of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel, the Convention applies to “persons engaged or deployed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as members of the military, police or civilian components of a United Nations operation”. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 1(a)(i).
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 2(2) of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel states:
This Convention shall not apply to a United Nations operation authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 2(2).
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 7 of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel states:
1. United Nations and associated personnel, their equipment and premises shall not be made the object of attack or of any action that prevents them from discharging their mandate.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel. In particular, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to protect United Nations and associated personnel who are deployed in their territory from the crimes set out in Article 9 [murder, kidnapping or other attack]. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 7.
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 20 of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel states:
1. Nothing in this Convention shall affect:
(a) The applicability of international humanitarian law and universally recognized standards of human rights as contained in international instruments in relation to the protection of United Nations operations and United Nations and associated personnel or the responsibility of such personnel to respect such law and standards; United Nations and associated personnel, their equipment and premises shall not be made the object of attack or of any action that prevents them from discharging their mandate. 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 20(1)(a).
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, the following constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 4 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides:
The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed the following serious violations of international humanitarian law:
(b) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 4(b).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Article 19 of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind provides:
1. The following crimes constitute crimes against the peace and security of mankind when committed intentionally and in a systematic manner or on a large scale against United Nations and associated personnel involved in a United Nations operation with a view to preventing or impeding that operation from fulfilling its mandate:
(a) Murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of any such personnel;
(b) Violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations or the means of transportation of any such personnel likely to endanger his or her person or liberty.
2. This article shall not apply to a United Nations operation authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international conflict applies. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 19.
The commentary on Article 19(2) states:
Attacks against United Nations and associated personnel constitute violent crimes of exceptionally serious gravity which have serious consequences not only for the victims, but also for the international community … Attacks against such personnel are in effect directed against the international community and strike at the very heart of the international legal system established for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security … The international community has a special responsibility to ensure the effective prosecution and punishment of the individuals who are responsible for criminal attacks against United Nations and associated personnel. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Commentary on Article 19(2)
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 1 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
1.1 The fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law set out in the present bulletin are applicable to United Nations forces when in situations of armed conflict they are actively engaged therein as combatants, to the extent and for the duration of their engagement. They are accordingly applicable in enforcement actions, or in peacekeeping operations when the use of force is permitted in self-defence.
1.2 The promulgation of this bulletin does not affect the protected status of members of peacekeeping operations under the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel or their status as non-combatants, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians under the international law of armed conflict. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 1.
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii), the following constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states:
It is prohibited for belligerents to open fire on interposition forces and on their materiel, [as] these forces’ mission is not to fight one or the other party to the conflict (except in case of self-defence) but to interpose themselves between such parties in order to ensure respect for a cease-fire. 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 110.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
Conduct with regard to intervention forces
It is prohibited for belligerents to open fire on intervention forces and their objects. Intervention forces are those whose mission is to intervene in order to ensure respect for a cease-fire with the aim of eventually ending the conflict, rather than to combat one or other of the parties to the conflict (except in case of self-defence). 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 257, § 612.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states:
When a United Nations’ force or mission performs functions of peacekeeping, observation or similar functions, each party to the conflict shall, if requested … take such measures as may be necessary to protect the force or mission while carrying out its duties … The protection of the force or mission shall always be ensured. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 418.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
[T]he role of peacekeeping troops can be compared to that of an umpire or a referee. As such, the peacekeeping troops would not be considered combatants, as this term is understood under international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict.
… It should not be assumed that simply because a UN Resolution invokes Chapter VII [of the UN Charter], that the offensive use of force is automatically authorised or that the UN personnel automatically become combatants. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 14.
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
UN personnel, equipment and facilities are protected by the “United Nations Emblem”.
IT IS FORBIDDEN to carry out hostile acts of any kind against people and objects protected by this emblem, except in cases of legitimate defence.
In Peacekeeping Operations it is not always the UN emblem that is used to protect the personnel, equipment and facilities of the Peacekeeping Force.
In such cases, each mission is provided with a specific protective emblem, which is recognized by all Parties operating in the territory of concern to the mission itself. The protection conferred by this emblem is similar to that provided by the United Nations Emblem. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 249.
[emphasis in original]
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states: “Respect all persons, objects and places involved in … United Nations peacekeeping operations.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(v).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
It is prohibited deliberately to direct attacks against personnel, equipment, units or vehicles involved in the provision of humanitarian aid or peace missions under the UN Charter, provided that they are entitled to the protection afforded under international law to civilians or civilian objects. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1068.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:
1.United Nations Forces are usually engaged in peacekeeping operations. On such occasions they have no combat function, although they may defend themselves if attacked. Their duty is to supervise or observe a situation between contestants, even combatants, and report back. Sometimes, their duty is to seek to interpose themselves between such forces with the intention that their presence under authority of a United Nations resolution and wearing United Nations insignia will protect them from attack, and thus create a cordon sanitaire between the antagonists.
2.When participating in peacekeeping operations, United Nations Forces are not present in State territory in any hostile capacity and are not engaged in any sort of armed conflict. In fact, their principal purpose is to prevent any such conflict not only as it would affect themselves but also as it affects the parties they are seeking to separate and keep apart. As a result, since their activities do not amount to participation in an armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 concerning the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, or prisoners of war do not govern their activities or protect them.
3.Since the IV GC operates to protect any non-combatant in the hands of a Party to a conflict, members of a United Nations Peacekeeping Force falling into the hands of a Party to a conflict would be covered by this Convention. It is difficult, however, to consider such personnel, who are members of the armed forces of the States providing contingents to the Force and who are wearing uniform and United Nations insignia, as civilians as that term is normally understood. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1904.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) states:
UN peace keeping Force should remain impartial, objective and neutral. Whenever it is perceived to be a party to a conflict, this does not exclude the applicability of International Humanitarian Law to UN Peace Keeping Force when it engages in defensive or combat mission in pursuance of their mandate. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 23, § 6.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Members of United Nations forces conducting peacekeeping operations under the Charter of the United Nations are considered to be civilians and are entitled to protection as such, if they do not become a party to the conflict”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 29.g.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Members of forces conducting peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations are considered to be civilians and are entitled to protection as such, if they do not become parties to the conflict.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 30(g), pp. 242–243.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that UN forces “must be respected [and] must not be made the object of attack”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 7.3.a.(9).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Forces acting pursuant to a United Nations mandate must be respected and cannot be attacked.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 7.3.a.(9).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states: “I spare and respect personnel and installations as well as equipment and means of transport of … the United Nations without discrimination unless they open fire on my comrades or me.” 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 7.
The Aide-Memoire further states with regards to the UN:
Correct behaviour
Personnel, installations, material and means of transport of the UN as well as bearers of distinctive signs or objects marked with distinctive signs must be respected and spared.
Prohibited is/are …
Damaging action against personnel, installations and material, as long as these are not involved in combat[.] 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
[W]here a United Nations force or other PSO [peace support operation] force is not engaged as a party to an armed conflict, its personnel and equipment would not constitute a military objective and attacks on them will therefore be unlawful. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 14.15.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states:
It is prohibited to attack the “personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, so long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.27.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.37 War crimeattacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the personnel are entitled to the protection given to civilians under the Geneva Conventions or Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the installations, material, units or vehicles are entitled to the protection given to civilian objects under the Geneva Conventions or Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years.
(3) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.37, p. 326.
The Criminal Code Act states with respect to war crimes that are serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in a non-international armed conflict:
268.79 War crimeattacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the personnel are entitled to the protection given to civilians under the Geneva Conventions or Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator directs an attack; and
(b) the object of the attack is installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and
(c) the installations, material, units or vehicles are entitled to the protection given to civilian objects under the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years.
(3) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.79, p. 355.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates into the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission” in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.37 and 268.79.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “directing attacks against personnel recruited to carry out peacekeeping missions” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(3).
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
17. intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(17).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] …, as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
8 quinquies. intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(8 quinquies).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003), as amended in 2004, states:
Whoever unlawfully confines, keeps confined or in some other manner deprives an internationally protected person of the freedom of movement, or restricts it in some way, with the aim to force him or some other person to do or to omit or to bear something, or perpetrates some other violence against such a person or his liberty his official premises, private accommodation or means of transportation likely to endanger his person or liberty, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, as amended in 2004, Article 192(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
c) launching deliberate attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
c) launching deliberate attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(c) and (D)(c).
Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:
2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
3°. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the [1945] Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
3°. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(3°) and (5)(3°).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes set out in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by:
Whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation and orders [or commits] … an attack against persons, equipment, materials, units or vehicles involved in humanitarian aid or a peace mission pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(1).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “attacks … persons engaged in tasks referred to in the Charter of the United Nations (Treaties of Finland 1/1956) or property used by them” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(9).
(emphasis in original)
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states:
The personnel and objects involved in a … peacekeeping mission in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations are … protected as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians and civilian objects under the law of armed conflicts.
It is prohibited for combatants to deliberately target protected persons. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
France
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally launching attacks against the personnel, installations, material, units and vehicles employed in a … peacekeeping mission, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilian and civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict, is punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment. 
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-12, para. 2.
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute that is not explicitly mentioned in the Code is a crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts, including
intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or a non-international armed conflict,
directs an attack against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peace-keeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under international humanitarian law. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 10(1)(1).
Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles used in humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping missions in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as such missions are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflicts. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(c) and (4)(c).
Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), the following constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts:
intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(3).
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, the following is a crime, whether committed in an international or non-international armed conflict:
intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units and vehicles involved in … peace missions in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(5)(o) and 6(3)(c).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons and Hostages) Amendment Act (1998) implementing the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel gives the courts of New Zealand extraterritorial jurisdiction over attacks against such personnel, their property and vehicles, which are criminalized by the Act. 
New Zealand, Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons and Hostages) Amendment Act, 1998, Sections 3 and 4.
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states:
Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … directs an attack against personnel, installations, material, medical units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or property/civilian objects under international law. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 105(a).
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against humanitarian operations and emblems”, states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than six years and not more than twenty-five years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:
1. Attacks persons, installations, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission … in accordance with the [1945] Charter of the United Nations, as long as they have the right to protection granted to civilians and civilian objects under International Humanitarian Law. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 95(1).
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the following war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 12(1)(1).
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitutes a war crime:
b) [O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
2. launching deliberate attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(2).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing an attack on “members … of … peace missions” in violation of international law constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, §§ (b)(iii) and (e)(iii).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
10. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel of the United Nations, [and] personnel associated or participating in peacekeeping … missions in accordance with the [1945] United Nations Charter, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict, or threatening to commit any such attack with the objective of compelling a physical or legal person to commit or to refrain from committing any act. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(10).
The Code further states:
1. Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:
i. Attacking or performing acts of hostility against installations, materials, units, private residences or vehicles [belonging] to any member of the personnel referred to in paragraph 10 article 612 or threatening [to commit] such attacks or acts of hostility in order to compel a natural or legal person to commit or to refrain from committing an act.
2. … In all other cases mentioned in the above article, the higher sentence can be imposed when extensive and important destructions are caused to the property, objects or installations or [the acts] are of extreme gravity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(i) and (2).
Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
Subject to the provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years, or with any lighter penalty, whoever treats inhumanly any of the persons hereinafter mentioned, during wartime, by killing him/her or causing physical or moral injury or grievous suffering thereto …:
(f) international monitors;
(g) officials belonging to international agencies and organizations, protected by international treaties and agreements ratified by the Sudan. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 152.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:
Art. 110
Articles 112–114 apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 112
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who in the context of an armed conflict directs an attack against:
b. … personnel, installations, material or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 26 June 1945, as long as they are protected by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112(1)(b).
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:
Art. 264b
Articles 264d–264j apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 264d
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who in the context of an armed conflict directs an attack against:
b. … personnel, installations, material or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 26 June 1945, as long as they are protected by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264d (1)(b).
[footnote in original omitted]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK UN Personnel Act (1997) provides:
If a person does outside the UK, any act to or in relation to a UN worker which, if he had done it in any part of the UK, would have made him guilty of [murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, rape, assault causing injury, kidnapping, abduction or false imprisonment], he shall in that part of the UK be guilty of that offence. 
United Kingdom, UN Personnel Act, 1997, Article 1.
The Act contains a similar provision for the prosecution of threats of attacks against UN workers, within or outside the United Kingdom; attacks against UN vehicles and premises committed outside the United Kingdom; and threats of attacks against UN vehicles and premises, within or outside the United Kingdom. 
United Kingdom, UN Personnel Act, 1997, Articles 2 and 3.
Within the framework of this Act, members of the military component of a UN operation engaged or deployed by the UN Secretary-General are UN workers. 
United Kingdom, UN Personnel Act, 1997, Article 4(1)(a).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iii) and (e)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.  
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
11. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection granted to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.11.
Belgium
In its judgment in the Violations of IHL in Somalia and Rwanda case in 1997, a Belgian Military Court decided that the members of the UNOSOM II mission could not be considered as “combatants” since their primary task was not to fight against any of the factions, nor could they fall into the category of an “occupying force”. 
Belgium, Military Court, Violations of IHL in Somalia and Rwanda case, Judgment, 17 December 1997.
Canada
In its judgment in the Brocklebank case in 1996, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada held that no armed conflict existed in Somalia at the relevant time, nor were the Canadian forces to be considered as a party to the conflict as they were engaged in a peacekeeping mission. 
Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Brocklebank case, Judgment, 2 April 1996.
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
International humanitarian law, in its treaty and customary form applicable in internal armed conflicts, provides for the special protection of certain categories of persons and property particularly vulnerable to the effects of war. The main categories of persons and objects specially protected [include] … personnel and objects involved in peacekeeping. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 120.
Australia
During a debate in the UN General Assembly following the shelling of the UN compound at Qana on 18 April 1996, Australia stated that all attacks against UN peacekeepers were totally unacceptable and contrary to the norms of international law. 
Australia, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/50/PV.116, 25 April 1996, p. 6.
China
In 2004, during a debate in the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, China stated:
1. PKOs [peacekeeping operations] must continue to adhere to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and be carried out with the authorization and under the guidance of the Security Council. They should fully respect the views of the parties concerned, be strictly neutral and adhere to the principle of using force only when it’s necessary. Experience has shown that only by so doing can the PKOs contribute to long-term regional peace and stability and achieve broad support and success.
4. The safety of UN personnel should be effectively safeguarded. The security situation in the areas of operation of some PKOs remains volatile. Peacekeeping personnel in some locations have even become targets of terrorist attacks. The Secretariat is doing the right thing in putting the safety of peacekeeping personnel at the top of its agenda. We encourage it to further strengthen internal security management and coordination and take effective preventive measures. Having acceded to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel last September, China is committed to fulfilling the purposes of the Convention. 
China, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of the People’s Republic of China in the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, on UN Peacekeeping Operations, 27 October 2004, available at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceun/eng/chinaandun/securitycouncil/thematicissues/peacekeeping/t168416.htm (last accessed on 19 May 2009).
Egypt
On 16 May 1967, the General Commander of the Egyptian armed forces sent a message to the Commander of UNEF stating: “Our forces have massed in Sinai on our eastern borders, and to safeguard the safety of the UNEF troops stationed in the observation posts on our borders, I request that you order the immediate withdrawal of these troops.” 
Egypt, Message from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic to the UN Secretary-General, 18 May 1967, Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 1.1; see also UN Secretary-General, Special Report on UNEF, UN Doc. A/6669, 18 May 1967, § 2.
Finland
In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Finland condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
Finland, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3367, 21 April 1994, p. 34.
France
In 2008, the Prime Minister of France stated: “Resolution 1674 adopted on 28 April 2006 by the UN Security Council, on the initiative of France, condemns … deliberate attacks against UN personnel and associated personnel taking part in humanitarian missions”. 
France, Response by the Prime Minister to the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights’ opinion on the Respect and Protection of Humanitarian Relief Personnel adopted on 17 January 2008, 27 May 2008, p. 1.
Germany
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Germany condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3553, 12 July 1995, p. 11.
Liberia
In 1996, in a report on UNOMIL, the UN Secretary-General noted that Liberia’s Council of State “condemned ULIMO-J for its attacks against ECOMOG”. 
UN Secretary-General, Sixteenth progress report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/232, 1 April 1996, § 6.
Malaysia
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia states that members of the Malaysian armed forces are trained to respect peacekeeping forces. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.4.
Russian Federation
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
Russian Federation, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3553, 12 July 1995, p. 9.
Ukraine
In 1991, in an appeal addressed to the President of the UN Security Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine stated:
Shooting at the UNPROFOR military personnel is a gross violation of the principles and norms of international law and may be considered by the Governments of States, contributing their military contingents to the United Nations peace-keeping forces, as hostile actions against their citizens. The Government of Ukraine strongly demands that the sides in conflict, in particular the Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as of Serbia undertake all necessary steps for immediate and unconditional cessation of hostile actions against the United Nations peace-keeping forces, the Ukrainian battalion among them in the Sarajevo sector. 
Ukraine, Appeal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the President of the UN Security Council, annexed to Letter dated 10 August 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24403, 10 August 1992, p. 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3553, 12 July 1995, p. 11.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1996, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the situation in Liberia, the United Kingdom expressed deep regret at the loss of life among ECOMOG forces and outrage that peacekeeping forces were subjected to attacks. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3621, 25 January 1996, p. 19.
United States of America
In 1992, in a report submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 of UN Security Council Resolution 771 (1992) on grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV committed in the former Yugoslavia, the United States noted that “five members of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) contingent in Sarajevo had been killed by combatants”. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Third Submission), annexed to Letter dated 5 November 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24791, 10 November 1992, p. 19.
United States of America
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United States condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
United States, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3553, 12 July 1995, p. 11.
Viet Nam
In 2008, in a statement before the UN Security Council in response to reports on attacks against UN peacekeeping soldiers in Lebanon, the representative of Viet Nam stated: “The United Nations’ … peacekeepers must have their safety ensured while performing their duties.” 
Viet Nam, Statement on the safety of UN peacekeepers before the UN Security Council by the representative of Viet Nam, 8 January 2008.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1978 on Lebanon, the UN Security Council demanded “full respect for the United Nations Force from all parties in Lebanon”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 427, 3 May 1978, § 4, voting record: 12-0-3.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1980 on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Security Council condemned “acts that have led to loss of life among the personnel of the Force and the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, their harassment and abuse, the disruption of communication, as well as the destruction of property and material”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 467, 24 April 1980, § 2, voting record: 12-0-3.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1986 on Lebanon, the UN Security Council condemned attacks committed against UNIFIL in Lebanon, referring to such acts as a “criminal action”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 587, 23 September 1986, §§ 1 and 2, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992 in the context of events in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern that “those United Nations Protection Force personnel remaining in Sarajevo have been subjected to deliberate mortar and small-arms fire, and that the United Nations Military Observers deployed in the Mostar region have had to be withdrawn”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 757, 30 May 1992, preamble, voting record: 13-0-2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Security Council condemned “the continuing armed attacks against the peace-keeping forces of ECOWAS in Liberia by one of the parties to the conflict”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 788, 19 November 1992, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
This condemnation was repeated in a resolution adopted in 1993. 
UN Security Council, Res. 813, 26 March 1993, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on Somalia, the UN Security Council stated that it was dismayed by “attacks on the Pakistani contingent in Mogadishu of the United Nations Operation in Somalia”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 794, 3 December 1992, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 in the context of the conflict in Croatia, the UN Security Council strongly condemned attacks by the Croatian forces “against UNPROFOR in the conduct of its duty of protecting civilians in the United Nations Protected Areas” and demanded “their immediate cessation”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 802, 25 January 1993, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on Angola, the UN Security Council condemned “attacks against UNAVEM II personnel in Angola” and demanded that “the Government and UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] take all necessary measures to ensure their safety and security”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 804, 29 January 1993, § 12, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the actions taken by Bosnian Serb paramilitary units against UNPROFOR, in particular, their refusal to guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of UNPROFOR personnel” and demanded that “all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 819, 16 April 1993, preamble and § 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on Somalia, the UN Security Council stated that it regarded the armed attacks launched by forces apparently belonging to the United Somali Congress against the personnel of UNOSOM II in June 1993 as “criminal attacks”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 837, 6 June 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on Somalia, the UN Security Council condemned “all attacks on UNOSOM II personnel” and reaffirmed that “those who have committed or ordered the commission of such criminal acts will be held individually responsible for them”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 865, 22 September 1993, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the security and safety of UN forces and personnel, the UN Security Council urged States and parties to a conflict “to cooperate closely with the United Nations to ensure the security and safety of United Nations forces and personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 868, 29 September 1993, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on continuation of United Nations Operation in Somalia II and the process of national reconciliation, reconstruction and political settlement in Somalia, the UN Security Council:
Condemning … violence and armed attacks against persons engaged in … peace-keeping efforts,
re-emphasizing the importance it attaches to the safety and security of United Nations and other personnel engaged in … peace-keeping throughout Somalia,
8. Demands that all Somali parties refrain from any acts of intimidation or violence against personnel engaged in … peace-keeping work in Somalia. 
UN Security Council, Res. 897, 4 February 1994, preamble and § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
These statements were repeated in two other resolutions on the same subject adopted later the same year. 
UN Security Council, Res. 923, 31 May 1994, preamble and § 5, voting record: 15-0-0; Res. 954, 4 November 1994, preamble and § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on adjustment of the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda due to the current situation in Rwanda and settlement of the Rwandan conflict, the UN Security Council:
Strongly condemns the attacks against UNAMIR and other United Nations personnel leading to the deaths of and injury to several UNAMIR personnel, and calls upon all concerned to put an end to these acts of violence and to respect fully international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 912, 21 April 1994, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly in the safe area of Goražde and political settlement of the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council condemned “the harassment and the detention of UNPROFOR personnel by the Bosnian Serb forces and all obstacles to UNPROFOR’s freedom of movement”.  
UN Security Council, Res. 913, 22 April 1994, preamble voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the expansion of the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda and imposition of an arms embargo on Rwanda, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all parties in Rwanda strictly respect the persons and premises of the United Nations and other organizations serving in Rwanda, and refrain from any acts of intimidation or violence against personnel engaged in … peace-keeping work. 
UN Security Council, Res. 918, 17 May 1994, § 11, adopted without a vote.
The Council reiterated this demand in a subsequent resolution. 
UN Security Council, Res. 925, 8 June 1994, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 authorizing the creation of a multinational force in Haiti, the UN Security Council demanded that “no acts of intimidation or violence be directed against personnel engaged in humanitarian or peace-keeping work”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 940, 31 July 1994, § 15 voting record: 12-0-2-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on extension of the mandate of the United Nations Operation in Somalia II, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the attacks and harassment against UNOSOM II”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 946, 30 September 1994, preamble, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on extension of the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia and peace process in Liberia, the UN Security Council:
7. Condemns … the detention and maltreatment of UNOMIL observers [and] ECOMOG soldiers …
8. Demands that all factions in Liberia strictly respect the status of ECOMOG and UNOMIL personnel, and … refrain from any acts of violence, abuse or intimidation against them and return forthwith equipment seized from them. 
UN Security Council, Res. 950, 21 October 1994, §§ 7 and 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on security and safety of the UN Protection Force, the UN Security Council:
Gravely preoccupied at the recent attacks on the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) personnel in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and at the fatalities resulting therefrom, condemning in the strongest terms such unacceptable acts directed at members of peace-keeping forces …
1. … demands again that all parties and others concerned refrain from any act of intimidation or violence against UNPROFOR and its personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 987, 19 April 1995, preamble and § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on extension of the mandate of the UN Observer Mission in Georgia and settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon the parties to improve their cooperation with UNOMIG and the CIS peace-keeping force … and also calls upon them to honour their commitments with regard to the security and freedom of movement of all United Nations and CIS personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 993, 12 May 1995, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a resolution adopted in the same context in 1996, the UN Security Council reiterated these demands. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1036, 12 January 1996, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on withdrawal of the Croatian Government troops from the zone of separation in Croatia and full deployment of the UN Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia, the UN Security Council:
Condemning in the strongest terms all unacceptable acts which were directed at the personnel of the United Nations peace-keeping forces and determined to obtain strict respect of the status of such personnel in the Republic of Croatia as provided for in the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of the Republic of Croatia signed on 15 May 1995,
Reaffirming its determination to ensure the security and freedom of movement of the personnel of United Nations peace-keeping operations in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. 
UN Security Council, Res. 994, 17 May 1995, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council demanded that “the Bosnian Serb forces release immediately and unconditionally all remaining detained UNPROFOR personnel” and that “all parties fully respect the safety of UNPROFOR personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 998, 16 June 1995, § 1, voting record: 13-0-2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council condemned “the offensive by the Bosnian Serb forces against the safe area of Srebrenica, and in particular the detention by the Bosnian Serb forces of UNPROFOR personnel”. It also condemned “all attacks on UNPROFOR personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1004, 12 July 1995, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on compliance by Croatia with the agreement signed on 6 Aug. 1995 between Croatia and the UN Peace Forces/UN Protection Force, including the right of the local Serb population to receive humanitarian assistance, the UN Security Council:
Condemning in the strongest terms the unacceptable acts by Croatian Government forces against personnel of the United Nations peace-keeping forces, including those which have resulted in the death of a Danish member of those forces and two Czech members, …
Reaffirming its determination to ensure the security and freedom of movement of the personnel of the United Nations peace-keeping operations in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, …
6. Demands that the Government of the Republic of Croatia fully respect the status of United Nations personnel, refrain from any attacks against them, bring to justice those responsible for any such attacks, and ensure the safety and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel at all times. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1009, 10 August 1995, preamble and § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on extension of the mandate of the UN Observer Mission in Liberia, the UN Security Council demanded that “all factions in Liberia strictly respect the status of ECOMOG and UNOMIL personnel, as well as organizations and agencies delivering humanitarian assistance throughout Liberia”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1014, 15 September 1995, § 13, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on implementation of the Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina and transfer of authority from the UN Protection Force to the multinational Implementation Force (IFOR), the UN Security Council called upon “the parties to ensure the safety and security of UNPROFOR and confirmed that UNPROFOR will continue to enjoy all existing privileges and immunities, including during the period of withdrawal”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1031, 15 December 1995, § 37, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council expressed its grave concern about the attacks against personnel of ECOMOG and civilians and demanded “that such hostile acts cease forthwith”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1041, 29 January 1996, preamble and § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council condemned “all attacks against personnel of ECOMOG [and] UNOMIL”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1059, 31 May 1996, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
This condemnation was reiterated several times the same year. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1071, 30 August 1996, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0; Res. 1083, 27 November 1996, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council condemned “all acts of violence committed in particular against [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)]” and urged “the parties to put an end to them”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1095, 28 January 1997, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1997 in the context of the conflict in Tajikistan, the UN Security Council stated that it was deeply concerned “over continuing attacks on the personnel of the United Nations, the Collective Peacekeeping Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and other international personnel in Tajikistan”. The Council strongly condemned “the acts of mistreatment against UNMOT and other international personnel” and urgently called upon the parties “to cooperate in bringing the perpetrators to justice, to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of the personnel of the United Nations, the CIS peacekeeping forces and other international personnel”.  
UN Security Council, Res. 1099, 14 March 1997, preamble and § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution on Angola adopted in 1997, the UN Security Council expressed “its concern about the … attacks by UNITA on UNAVEM III posts and personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1118, 30 June 1997, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council: “all acts of violence committed in particular against [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)]” and urged “the parties to put an end to them”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1122, 29 July 1997, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council:
Condemns the attacks by members of UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] on MONUA personnel and on Angolan national authorities, and demands that UNITA immediately stop such attacks, cooperate fully with MONUA and guarantee unconditionally the safety and freedom of movement of MONUA and other international personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1157, 20 March 1998, § 9, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council:
Strongly condemns the attacks by members of UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] on the personnel of the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola, international personnel and Angolan national authorities, including the police, demands that UNITA immediately stop such attacks, and urges MONUA to investigate promptly the recent attack in N’gove. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1164, 29 April 1998, § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council:
Further demands that UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] stop any attacks by its members on the personnel of MONUA, international personnel, [and] the authorities of the GURN [Government of Unity and National Reconciliation], including the police, and the civilian population. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1173, 12 June 1998, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its demand that UNITA [União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola] immediately stop any attacks by its members on the personnel of MONUA, international personnel, the authorities of the Government of Unity and National Reconciliation (GURN), including the police, and the civilian population, and calls again upon the GURN and in particular UNITA to guarantee unconditionally the safety and freedom of movement of all United Nations and international personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1180, 29 June 1998, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Condemns the acts of violence against the personnel of UNOMIG and the attacks by armed groups, operating in the Gali region from the Georgian side of the Inguri River, against the CIS peacekeeping force and demands that the parties, in particular the Georgian authorities, take determined measures to put a stop to such acts which subvert the peace process. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1187, 30 July 1998, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 in the context of the conflict in Tajikistan, the UN Security Council:
6. Strongly condemns the murder of four members of UNMOT …
7. Acknowledges the efforts of the Government of Tajikistan to enhance the protection of international personnel and calls upon the parties to cooperate further in ensuring the safety and freedom of movement of the personnel of the United Nations, the CIS Peacekeeping Forces and other international personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1206, 12 November 1998, §§ 6–7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council condemned “in the strongest terms the … detention of the personnel of UNAMSIL [by the Revolutionary United Front] in Sierra Leone”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1313, 4 August 2000, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council urged “the parties … to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1461, 30 January 2003, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
12. Calls on the Georgian side to continue to improve security for joint UNOMIG and CIS peacekeeping force patrols in the Kodori Valley to enable them to monitor the situation independently and regularly;
17. Welcomes the additional safeguards for helicopter flights instituted in response to the shooting down of a UNOMIG helicopter on 8 October 2001, calls, once again, on the parties to take all necessary steps to identify those responsible for the incident, to bring them to justice, and to inform the Special Representative on the implementation of these steps;
18. Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1462, 30 January 2003, §§ 12 and 17–18, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the deliberate killing of unarmed MONUC personnel and staff of humanitarian organizations in Ituri” and demanded that “the perpetrators be brought to justice”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1484, 30 May 2003, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all the parties desist from any interference with freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, recalls that all the parties have the obligation to provide full and unhindered access to MONUC to allow it to carry out its mandate, and asks the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to report any failure to comply with this obligation. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1493, 28 July 2003, § 15, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council urged “the parties … to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1496, 31 July 2003, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council called on “all Liberian parties and Member States to cooperate fully with the Multinational Force in Liberia in the execution of its mandate and to respect the security and freedom of movement of the Multinational Force”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1497, 1 August 2003, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the protection of UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones, the UN Security Council:
Welcoming the adoption by the General Assembly of resolutions 57/28 entitled Scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and 57/155 entitled Safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel,
Reaffirming the obligation of all humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel to observe and respect the laws of the country in which they are operating, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and underlining the importance for humanitarian organizations to uphold the principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity in their humanitarian activities,
Emphasizing that there are existing prohibitions under international law against attacks knowingly and intentionally directed against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission undertaken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations which in situations of armed conflicts constitute war crimes, and recalling the need for States to end impunity for such criminal acts,
Aware that the protection of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel is a concern in situations of armed conflict and otherwise,
Gravely concerned at the acts of violence in many parts of the world against humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, in particular deliberate attacks, which are in violation of international humanitarian law, as well as other international law that may be applicable, such as the attack against the Headquarters of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) in Baghdad on 19 August 2003,
1. Expresses its strong condemnation of all forms of violence, including, inter alia, murder, rape and sexual assault, intimidation, armed robbery, abduction, hostage-taking, kidnapping, harassment and illegal arrest and detention to which those participating in humanitarian operations are increasingly exposed, as well as attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of their property;
2. Urges States to ensure that crimes against such personnel do not remain unpunished;
3. Reaffirms also the obligation of all parties involved in an armed conflict to comply fully with the rules and principles of international law applicable to them related to the protection of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, in particular international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law;
4. Urges all those concerned as set forth in international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to all people in need of assistance, and to make available, as far as possible, all necessary facilities for their operations, and to promote the safety, security and freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel and their assets;
5. Expresses its determination to take appropriate steps in order to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, including, inter alia, by:
(a) Requesting the Secretary-General to seek the inclusion of, and that host countries include, key provisions of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, among others, those regarding the prevention of attacks against members of United Nations operations, the establishment of such attacks as crimes punishable by law and the prosecution or extradition of offenders, in future as well as, if necessary, in existing status-of-forces, status-of-missions and host country agreements negotiated between the United Nations and those countries, mindful of the importance of the timely conclusion of such agreements;
(b) Encouraging the Secretary-General, in accordance with his prerogatives under the Charter of the United Nations, to bring to the attention of the Security Council situations in which humanitarian assistance is denied as a consequence of violence directed against humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel;
(c) Issuing the declaration of exceptional risk for the purposes of article 1 (c) (ii) of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, in situations where in its assessment circumstances would support such a declaration, and inviting the Secretary-General to advise the Council, where in his assessment circumstances would support such a declaration;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to address in all his country-specific situation reports, the issue of the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, including specific acts of violence against such personnel, remedial actions taken to prevent similar incidents and actions taken to identify and hold accountable those who commit such acts, and to explore and propose additional ways and means to enhance the safety and security of such personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1502, 26 August 2003, preamble and §§ 1–6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council called upon “all parties to cooperate fully in the deployment and operations of UNMIL, including through ensuring the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, together with associated personnel, throughout Liberia”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1509, 19 September 2003, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
26. Calls on the Georgian side to continue to improve security for joint UNOMIG and CIS peacekeeping force patrols in the Kodori Valley to enable them to resume monitoring of the situation independently and regularly when road conditions permit;
27. Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel; strongly condemns the repeated abductions of personnel of those missions, deeply deplores that none of the perpetrators have ever been identified or brought to justice and reiterates that it is the responsibility of the parties to end this impunity;
28. Urges the parties, once again, to take all necessary steps to identify those responsible for the shooting down of a UNOMIG helicopter on 8 October 2001, to bring them to justice, and to inform the Special Representative on the steps taken. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1524, 30 January 2004, §§ 26–28, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council urged “the parties … to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1525, 30 January 2004, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adoption in 2004 on the situation in Haiti, the UN Security Council:
Calls on all parties in Haiti and on Member States to cooperate fully with the Multinational Interim Force in Haiti in the execution of its mandate and to respect the security and freedom of movement of the Multinational Interim Force. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1529, 29 February 2004, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council:
11. Requests all parties to cooperate fully with the deployment and operations of ONUB, in particular by ensuring the safety and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel, as well as the personnel of humanitarian, development and aid organizations, throughout the territory of Burundi;
12. Recalls its resolution 1502 of 26 August 2003, reaffirms the obligation of all parties to comply fully with the rules and principles of international humanitarian law applicable to them related to the protection of humanitarian and United Nations personnel, and also urges all those concerned to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to all people in need of assistance as set forth in applicable international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1545, 21 May 2004, §§ 11–12, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council demanded that “the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of SFOR and other international personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1551, 9 July 2004, § 17, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council urged all parties “to abide scrupulously by the obligation to respect the safety of the UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1553, 29 July 2004, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel; strongly condemns in that respect the repeated abductions of personnel of those missions in the past, deeply deplores that none of the perpetrators have ever been identified or brought to justice and reiterates again that it is the responsibility of the parties to end this impunity. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1554, 29 July 2004, § 26, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully and expeditiously with UNMEE in the implementation of its mandate, to ensure the security of all UNMEE staff, and to remove immediately and unconditionally all restrictions on and impediments to the work and full and free movement of UNMEE and its staff. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1560, 14 September 2004, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all parties cooperate fully with the operations of MONUC and that they ensure the safety of as well as unhindered and immediate access for United Nations and associated personnel in carrying out their mandate, throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, demands in particular that all parties provide full access to MONUC military observers, including in all ports, airports, airfields, military bases and border crossings, and requests the Secretary-General to report without delay any failure to comply with these demands. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1565, 1 October 2004, § 20, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
28. Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel;
29. Strongly condemns in that respect the repeated abductions of personnel of those missions in the past, deeply deplores that none of the perpetrators have ever been identified or brought to justice, reiterates that it is the responsibility of the parties to end this impunity and calls upon them to take action. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1582, 28 January 2005, §§ 28–29, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon all parties to cooperate fully in the deployment and operations of UNMIS, in particular by guaranteeing the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel as well as associated personnel throughout the territory of Sudan. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1590, 24 March 2005, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterating its serious concern regarding the continuation of hostilities by armed groups and militias in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in the provinces of North and South Kivu and in the Ituri district, and by the grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law that accompany them …
Recalling its condemnation of the attack by one of these militias against members of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), on 25 February 2005, and welcoming the first steps taken to date to bring them to justice, in particular the arrests of militia leaders suspected of bearing responsibility for human rights abuses,
2. Reaffirms its demand that all parties cooperate fully with the operations of MONUC and that they ensure the safety of, as well as unhindered and immediate access for, United Nations and associated personnel in carrying out their mandate, throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1592, 30 March 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council:
Recalling further the relevant principles contained in the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel adopted on 9 December 1994,
4. … urges the parties … to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of the UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel, including by avoiding any course of action which endangers United Nations personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1614, 29 July 2005, preamble and § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Recalling the relevant principles contained in the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel adopted on 9 December 1994,
Deploring that the perpetrators of the shooting down of a helicopter of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) on 8 October 2001, which resulted in the death of nine people on board, have still not been identified,
29. Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel and calls upon both sides to fulfil their obligations in this regard;
30. Strongly condemns in that respect the repeated abductions of personnel of those missions in the past, deeply deplores that none of the perpetrators have ever been identified or brought to justice, reiterates that it is the responsibility of the parties to end this impunity and calls upon them to take action;
31. Also calls upon the parties, once again, to take all necessary steps, to identify those responsible for the shooting down of a UNOMIG helicopter on 8 October 2001, to bring them to justice, and to inform the SRSG of the steps taken in particular in the criminal investigation. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1615, 29 July 2005, preamble and §§ 29–31, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the UN Security Council:
Takes note of the continuing improvement in the climate of cooperation between UNMEE and the parties and calls on both parties to cooperate fully and expeditiously with UNMEE in the implementation of its mandate, to ensure the security of all UNMEE staff, and to remove immediately and unconditionally all restrictions on and impediments to the work and to the full and free movement of UNMEE and its staff; also in this regard strongly urges Eritrea to remove the restrictions on UNMEE military police in Asmara. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1622, 13 September 2005, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
Condemns the serious attacks against the personnel of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and the unacceptable obstacles to the freedom of movement of UNOCI and French forces, demands that all Ivorian parties cooperate fully in their operations, in particular by guaranteeing the safety, security and freedom of movement of their personnel, as well as associated personnel, throughout the territory of Côte d’Ivoire, and affirms that any obstacle to their freedom of movement or to the full implementation of their mandates would not be tolerated. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1633, 21 October 2005, § 21, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council:
Recalling further the relevant principles contained in the Convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel adopted on 9 December 1994,
4. … urges the parties … to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel, including by avoiding any course of action which endangers United Nations personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res., 1655, 31 January 2006, preamble and § 4, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel and calls on both sides to fulfil their obligations in this regard. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1666, 31 March 2006, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council:
Urges all concerned parties to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel, and avoid any course of action which might endanger United Nations personnel, and calls on them to allow the Force to resupply its positions, conduct search and rescue operations on behalf of its personnel and undertake any other measures the Force deems necessary to ensure the safety of its personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1697, 31 July 2006, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Timor-Leste, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon all parties in Timor-Leste to cooperate fully in the deployment and operations of UNMIT and international security forces, in particular in ensuring the safety, security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel as well as associated personnel throughout Timor-Leste. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1704, 25 August 2006, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel and calls on both sides to fulfil their obligations in this regard”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1716, 13 October 2006, § 15, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council,
Demands that all Ivorian parties cooperate fully with the operations of UNOCI and the French forces which support it, as well as United Nations agencies and associated personnel, in particular by guaranteeing the safety, security and freedom of movement of their personnel, as well as associated personnel, throughout the territory of Côte d’Ivoire, and reaffirms that any obstacle to their freedom of movement or to the full implementation of their mandates would not be tolerated. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1721, 1 November 2006, § 28, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Recalling the relevant principles contained in the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel adopted on 9 December 1994 and the statement of its President on 10 February 2000 (S/PRST/2000/4),
17. Demands that the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of EUFOR, the NATO presence, and other international personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1722, 21 November 2006, preamble and § 17,
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council,
Calls upon all parties to cooperate fully in the deployment and operations of UNOCI …, in particular by guaranteeing their safety, security and freedom of movement with unhindered and immediate access, as well as associated personnel, throughout the territory of Côte d’Ivoire, to enable them to carry out fully their mandates. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1739, 10 January 2007, § 9, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the question concerning Haiti, the UN Security Council:
Deplores and condemns in the strongest terms any attack against personnel from MINUSTAH and demands that no acts of intimidation or violence be directed against United Nations and associated personnel and other international and humanitarian organizations engaged in humanitarian, development or peacekeeping work. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1743, 15 February 2007, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel and calls on both sides to fulfil their obligations in this regard. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1752, 13 April 2007, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council commended “the efforts of the African Union for successful deployment of AMIS, despite exceptionally difficult circumstances” and condemned “the recent fatal attacks on AMIS”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1755, 30 April 2007, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all parties cooperate fully with the operations of MONUC and that they ensure the security of as well as unhindered and immediate access for United Nations and associated personnel in carrying out their mandate, throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1756, 15 May 2007, § 16, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities and attacks on AMIS, civilians and humanitarian agencies, their staff and assets and relief convoys, and further demands that all parties to the conflict in Darfur fully co-operate with AMIS, civilians and humanitarian agencies, their staff and assets and relief convoys. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1769, 31 July 2007, § 14, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Somalia, the UN Security Council:
Strongly supports and encourages the ongoing relief efforts in Somalia, recalls its resolution 1502 (2003) on the protection of humanitarian and United Nations personnel, calls on all parties and armed groups in Somalia to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and security of AMISOM and humanitarian personnel, and grant timely, safe and unhindered access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need, and urges the countries in the region to facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance by land or via air and sea ports. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1772, 20 August 2007, § 20, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Georgia, the UN Security Council:
Underlines that it is the primary responsibility of both sides to provide appropriate security and to ensure the freedom of movement throughout the zone of conflict of UNOMIG, the CIS peacekeeping force and other international personnel and calls on both sides to fulfil their obligations in this regard and to extend full cooperation to UNOMIG and the CIS peacekeeping force. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1781, 15 October 2007, § 17, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
5. Decides that any serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of UNOCI and of the French forces which support it, or any attack or obstruction of the action of UNOCI, of the French forces, of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, of the Facilitator mentioned in paragraph 10 of resolution 1765 (2007) or his Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire shall constitute a threat to the peace and national reconciliation process for the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 11 of resolution 1572 (2004);
6. Requests the Secretary-General and the French Government to report to it immediately, through the Committee, any serious obstacle to the freedom of movement of UNOCI and of the French forces which support it, including the names of those responsible, and requests also the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, the Facilitator or his Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire to report to it immediately, through the Committee, any attack or obstruction of their action;
15. Underlines that it is fully prepared to impose targeted measures against persons to be designated by the Committee who are determined to be, among other things:
(b) Attacking or obstructing the action of UNOCI, of the French forces which support it, of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, of the Facilitator or his Special Representative in Côte d’Ivoire;
(c) Responsible for obstacles to the freedom of movement of UNOCI and of the French forces which support it. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1782, 29 October 2007, §§ 5–6 and 15, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council demanded that “the parties respect the security and freedom of movement of EUFOR, the NATO presence and other international personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1785, 21 November 2007, § 17, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1992, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council condemned “the recent cowardly attack on UNPROFOR positions in Sarajevo resulting in loss of life and injuries among the Ukrainian servicemen” and reiterated its demand that “all parties and others concerned take the necessary measures to secure the safety of UNPROFOR personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/24379, 4 August 1992.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council expressed the view that “attacks and other acts of violence, whether actual or threatened, including obstruction or detention of persons, against United Nations forces … are wholly unacceptable” and reiterated its demand that “States and other parties to various conflicts take all possible steps to ensure the safety and security of United Nations forces”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/25493, 31 March 1993, pp. 1 and 2.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President adopted after having heard “accounts of attacks against UNPROFOR by armed persons bearing uniforms of the Bosnian Government forces”, the UN Security Council stated that “the members of the Council unreservedly condemn these acts of violence”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/26661, 28 October 1993.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council condemned “attacks against the personnel of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/1, 7 January 1994, p. 1; see also Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/11, 14 March 1994, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on the situation in Rwanda, the UN Security Council condemned the killing of at least 10 Belgian peacekeepers, as well as the reported kidnapping of others, as “horrific attacks” and urged “respect for safety and security of … UNAMIR and other United Nations personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/16, 7 April 1994, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is deeply concerned at recent incidents in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina affecting the safety and freedom of movement of UNPROFOR personnel … These incidents constitute clear violations of the Security Council’s resolutions, which bind the parties. The Council condemns such incidents and warns those responsible of the serious consequences of their actions. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/19, 14 April 1994.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on Somalia, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council, appalled by the killing near Baidoa on 22 August of seven Indian soldiers and the wounding of nine more serving with UNOSOM-II, strongly condemns this premeditated attack on United Nations peace-keepers. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/46, 25 August 1994, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns the deliberate attack on Bangladeshi United Nations peace-keepers on 12 December 1994 in Velika Kladusa, in the region of Bihac in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. …
The Security Council is outraged at this incident of direct attack on UNPROFOR personnel and demands that such attacks do not recur. It warns the perpetrators of the attack that their heinous act of violence carries corresponding individual responsibility. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/79, 13 December 1994.
UN Security Council
In 1995, in a statement by its President following the fatal shooting of a French peacekeeper by a sniper in Sarajevo, the UN Security Council condemned “in the strongest terms such acts directed at peace-keepers who are serving the cause of peace in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina” and reiterated that such attacks “should not remain unpunished”.  
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/19, 14 April 1995.
UN Security Council
In 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns attacks by Croatian Government forces on personnel of the United Nations peace-keeping forces which have resulted in casualties, including the death of one member of the peace-keeping forces. It demands that such attacks cease immediately and that all detained personnel be released. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/38, 4 August 1995, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1996, in a statement by its President on the situation in Angola, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns the incident on 3 April 1996 which resulted in the death of two UNAVEM III personnel [and] the wounding of a third … and reiterates the importance it attaches to the safety and security of UNAVEM III … personnel. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1996/19, 24 April 1996, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President in the context of the conflict in Croatia, the UN Security Council condemned “the incident that occurred at Vukovar on 31 January 1997 and that resulted in the death of an UNTAES peacekeeper and injuries to other UNTAES personnel”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/4, 31 January 1997, p. 3.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council strongly condemned attacks on and the kidnapping of UNMOT personnel in Tajikistan. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/6, 7 February 1997.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President in the context of the conflict in Georgia, the UN Security Council reminded the parties of their obligation “to ensure the safety and freedom of movement of UNOMIG and the CIS peacekeeping force”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/25, 8 May 1997, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council condemned “the harassment of United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) personnel in the exercise of their functions” in areas under the control of the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA). 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/39, 23 July 1997, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the confirmed attacks by members of UNITA on the personnel of the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA)”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/14, 22 May 1998, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in a statement by its President on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns the deliberate acts of violence against the personnel of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) and of the Collective Peacekeeping Forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States … The Council demands that both sides take determined and prompt measures to put a stop to such acts. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/34, 25 November 1998, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns … the attacks against the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) … and reiterates that there will be no impunity for such acts and that the perpetrators will be held accountable. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/6, 16 May 2003, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President regarding Kosovo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council … strongly condemns the attacks on the troops of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the personnel and sites of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Such violence is unacceptable and must stop immediately. Those responsible must be brought to justice. The perpetrators must understand that an attack on the international presence is an attack on the international community as a whole. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/5, 18 March 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is deeply concerned by slogans and declarations of hate, in particular those addressed against the personnel of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI), and urges all the Ivorian actors to refrain from any action or statement, especially in the media, which put at risk the security of United Nations personnel and, more globally, the process of national reconciliation. The Security Council recalls the obligation of all Ivorian actors, in particular the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, to cooperate fully in the deployment and operations of UNOCI, which is there at the request of the Government, in particular by guaranteeing the safety, security and free movement of all United Nations personnel. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/17, 25 May 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly recalls the obligations of all Ivoirian parties, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire as well as the Forces Nouvelles, … to cooperate fully with the activities of UNOCI. The Security Council firmly reminds all parties of the need to guarantee the security and freedom of movement of all United Nations personnel. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/42, 6 November 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reiterates its call to all parties to armed conflict, including non-State parties, to take all necessary measures to ensure security and freedom of movement of United Nations and associated personnel as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations. The Security Council condemns all attacks targeting United Nations personnel and other humanitarian workers, and underlines that the perpetrators of such attacks must be held accountable as outlined in its resolution 1502 (2003) of 26 August 2003. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/46, 14 December 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns with the utmost firmness the attack against a patrol of the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) by the Front des Nationalistes et Intégrationnistes in Ituri (FNI), which occurred on 25 February 2005 near the town of Kafé, resulting in the murder of nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers. It offers its condolences to the victims’ families and to the authorities of Bangladesh. It commends the dedication of MONUC’s personnel, who operate in particularly hazardous conditions. It welcomes the action of MONUC against the militia groups responsible for these killings and MONUC’s continued robust action in pursuit of its mandate.
The Security Council considers this aggression, by its intentional and well-planned nature, to be an unacceptable outrage. It calls upon the Government of National Unity and Transition immediately to take all necessary measures to bring to justice the perpetrators, sponsors and authors of this attack and welcomes the first arrests undertaken by the Government. It endorses in this regard the serious concern expressed in Kinshasa on 28 February 2005 by the International Committee in Support of the Transition over the illegal and criminal activities of militia in Ituri and their military and political leaders, in particular Floribert Ndjabu, Goda Sukpa, Étienne Lona, Thomas Lubanga, Bosco Tanganda and Germain Katanga. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/10, 2 March 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns the recent violent attacks against the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) and international NGO facilities in Côte d’Ivoire by street militias and other groups associated with the “Young Patriots”, as well as their instigators. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/2, 19 January 2006, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns with the utmost firmness the attack against a detachment of the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), which occurred on 23 January 2006 in the national park of Garamba, resulting in the death of eight Guatemalan peacekeepers and the severe wounding of five others. It offers its condolences to the victims’ families and to the authorities of Guatemala. It commends the dedication of MONUC’s personnel, who operate in particularly hazardous conditions.  
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/4, 25 January 2006, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is deeply shocked and distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations Observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July 2006, which caused the death of four United Nations military observers.
The Security Council is deeply concerned about the safety and security of United Nations personnel and in this regard, stresses that Israel and all concerned parties must comply fully with their obligations under international humanitarian law related to the protection of United Nations and its associated personnel and underlines the importance of ensuring that United Nations personnel are not the object of attack. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/34, 27 July 2006, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council stated:
… The Security Council appeals to all parties concerned to … abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of the UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel, including by avoiding any course of action which endangers United Nations personnel and by ensuring UNIFIL is accorded full freedom of movement throughout its area of operation. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/12, 17 April 2007, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the Sudan, the UN Security Council demanded that “all parties … end violence against civilians and attacks on peacekeepers”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/15, 25 May 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council appeals to all parties concerned to abide scrupulously by their obligation to respect the safety of the UNIFIL and other United Nations personnel, including by avoiding any course of action which endangers United Nations personnel and by ensuring UNIFIL is accorded full freedom of movement throughout its area of operations. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/21, 25 June 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Middle East, the UN Security Council stated:
… The Council reaffirms its full support for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), condemns all terrorist attacks against it, and calls on all parties to abide by their obligation to respect the safety of UN personnel. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/29, 3 August 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council was briefed on 1 October on the recent attack on African Union peacekeepers in Haskanita, South Darfur, Sudan, reportedly committed by a rebel group. The Council condemns this murderous attack and demands that no effort be spared so that the perpetrators be identified and brought to justice.
The Security Council recalls the demand in resolution 1769 (2007) on all parties for an immediate cessation of hostilities and attacks on AMIS, civilians and humanitarian agencies. The Council insists that all parties in the Sudan comply with this demand. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/35, 2 October 2007, p. 1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN General Assembly condemned attacks against UNPROFOR in Sarajevo resulting in loss of life and injury to UNPROFOR personnel. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/121, 18 December 1992, preamble, voting record: 102-0-57-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly reiterated its condemnation of attacks against UNPROFOR. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, § 15, voting record: 150-0-14-21 .
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN General Assembly condemned “all attacks on the United Nations Peace Forces” in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 14, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the UN General Assembly affirmed “the obligation of all States to comply fully with their obligations under the relevant rules and principles of international law in relation to the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/82, 9 December 2003, § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly:
2. Urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the full and effective implementation of the relevant principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, as well as the relevant provisions of human rights and refugee law related to the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations personnel;
4. Calls upon all other parties involved in armed conflicts, in compliance with international humanitarian law, in particular their obligations under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the obligations applicable to them under the Additional Protocols thereto, to ensure the safety and protection of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, to refrain from abducting or detaining them in violation of their immunity under relevant conventions referred to in the present resolution and applicable international humanitarian law, and speedily to release, without harm, any abductee or detainee. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, §§ 2 and 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on special assistance for the economic recovery and reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
Urges all parties to fully respect international humanitarian law and to ensure the safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to all affected populations throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the safety of United Nations and humanitarian personnel. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/123, 17 December 2003, § 13, voting record: 169-1-0-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
4. Condemns:
(b) The killing of United Nations peacekeeping troops by militia groups in Ituri Province, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, in February 2005 and in June 2005;
5. Urges all the parties:
(e) To respect international humanitarian law, in particular on the protection of civilians, and to ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of all civilians and United Nations and associated personnel, and the unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to all of the affected population throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1265 (1999) of 17 September 1999 and 1296 (2000) of 19 April 2000. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/170, 16 December 2005, §§ 4(b) and 5(e), voting record: 102-3-67-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly emphasized “the importance of paying special attention to the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel engaged in United Nations peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/133, 14 December 2006, § 17, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly emphasized “the importance of paying special attention to the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel engaged in United Nations peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/95, 17 December 2007, § 17, adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on strengthening of the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations, ECOSOC:
Recalling the inclusion of attacks intentionally directed against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations as a war crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was adopted on 17 July 1998 and entered into force on 1 July 2002, and notes the role that the Court could play in appropriate cases in bringing to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law.  
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/5, 15 July 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the attacks on the United Nations Protection Force, which have resulted in casualties and deaths of United Nations personnel”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/7, 23 February 1993, § 15, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned continued attacks and other acts of violence committed against UN personnel, in particular contingents belonging to UNOSOM II in Somalia. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/60, 4 March 1994, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the attacks on and continuous harassment of the United Nations Protection Force”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “attacks on and continued harassment of the United Nations Protection Force”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/89, 8 March 1995, §17, voting record: 44-0-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “in the strongest terms the kidnapping and killing of military peacekeeping personnel … all of which constitute blatant violations of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/91, 8 March 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the protection of United Nations personnel, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Strongly condemning the acts of murder and various forms of physical violence, rape and sexual assault, abduction, hostage-taking, kidnapping, harassment, illegal arrest and detention, acts of destruction and looting of property, shooting at vehicles and aircraft, mine-laying, looting of assets, physical and psychological threats and other hostile acts against United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel acting under the authority of United Nations operations, as well as personnel of international humanitarian organizations,
Guided by the relevant provisions on protection contained in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977 and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its Protocols,
Welcoming the adoption by the Security Council of resolution 1502 (2003) of 26 August 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the United Nations and its associated personnel,
Welcoming General Assembly resolution 58/122 of 17 December 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel,
Welcoming also General Assembly resolution 58/82 of 9 December 2003 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel,
Welcoming the fact that the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which entered into force on 15 January 1999, has been ratified or acceded to by 71 Member States as at the present date, and mindful of the need to promote its universality,
Welcoming also the inclusion of attacks intentionally directed against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations as a war crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (A/CONF.183/9), which entered into force on 1 July 2002, and noting the role that the Court can play in bringing to justice those responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as a measure of preventing impunity,
Recalling that the primary responsibility under international law for the security and protection of United Nations and associated personnel lies with the Government hosting a United Nations operation conducted under the Charter or its agreements with the relevant organizations,
Urging all parties involved in armed conflicts to ensure the security and protection of all United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel carrying out activities in fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation, in compliance with international humanitarian law, in particular their obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the obligations applicable to them under the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977,
Emphasizing that there are existing prohibitions under international law against attacks knowingly and intentionally directed against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission undertaken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which in situations of armed conflict constitute war crimes, and recalling the need for States to end impunity for such criminal acts,
Gravely concerned at the acts of violence in many parts of the world against humanitarian personnel and the United Nations and its associated personnel, in particular deliberate attacks, which are in violation of international humanitarian law, as well as other international law that may be applicable, such as the attack against the headquarters of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq in Baghdad on 19 August 2003,
Expressing concern that the occurrence of attacks and threats against United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel is a factor that increasingly affects and restricts the ability of the Organization to provide assistance and protection to civilians in fulfilment of its mandate under the Charter,
Reaffirming the fundamental requirement that appropriate modalities for the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel should be incorporated in all new and ongoing United Nations and field operations, as well as a culture of accountability for the safety of personnel at all levels throughout the United Nations system, and in this regard welcoming the ongoing efforts of the Secretary-General to enhance further the security management system of the United Nations,
Emphasizing the need to give further consideration to the safety and security of locally recruited United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel, who account for the majority of casualties,
3. Urges all States:
(a) To take the necessary measures to ensure the full and effective implementation of the relevant provisions of human rights and refugee law relating to the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel, as well as relevant principles and rules of international humanitarian law;
(b) To take stronger actions to ensure that any threat or act of violence committed against United Nations and associated personnel on their territory is investigated fully and to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice in accordance with international law and national law, and notes the need for States to end impunity for such acts;
(c) To facilitate and expedite, consistent with their national laws and regulations, the use of communications resources necessary to ensure the protection and safety of United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel carrying out activities in fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation, and emphasizes the importance of States’ facilitating communications, inter alia through limiting and, whenever possible, lifting the restrictions placed on the use of communications equipment by United Nations and its associated personnel;
4. Calls upon all States and others concerned:
(a) To respect and ensure respect for the rights of United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel carrying out activities in fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation and to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of those personnel as well as the inviolability of United Nations premises which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations;
(b) To take stronger actions to ensure that any threat or act of violence committed against United Nations and associated personnel on their territory is investigated fully and to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice in accordance with international law and national law, and notes the need for States to end impunity for such acts;
(i) To promote a climate of respect for the security of United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel carrying out activities in fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/77, 21 April 2004, preamble and §§ 3 and 4(a)–(b) and (i), voting record: without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties:
To protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law, in particular by ensuring the safety, security and freedom of movement of all civilians, and that of United Nations personnel and associated personnel, as well as free access for humanitarian personnel to all affected population groups throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/84, 21 April 2004, § 4(g), adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council strongly condemned “the targeting of United Nations peacekeepers at the United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July 2006”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.
UN Secretary-General
In January 1992, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General reported “a substantial increase in the number of firings by IDF/DFF at or close to UNIFIL positions” and stated that “these incidents were vigorously protested to the Israeli military authorities”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/23452, 21 January 1992, § 20.
In July 1992, in another report on the same subject, the UN Secretary-General reported “175 instances of firing by IDF/DFF at or close to UNIFIL positions” and stated that “deliberate firing at UNIFIL positions had been the subject of frequent protests to the Israeli authorities”.  
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/24341, 21 July 1992, § 24.
UN Secretary-General
In 1992, in report concerning UNPROFOR, the UN Secretary-General referred to fire originating from “small arms” directed at peacekeeping personnel in the UN Protected Area. Attacks conducted by drunk Yugoslav People’s Army or Croatian army soldiers also triggered official complaints. 
UN Secretary-General, Further report pursuant to Security Council resolution 749 (1992), UN Doc. S/23844, 24 April 1992, § 13.
UN Secretary-General
In 1992, in a report on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 783 (1992), the UN Secretary-General characterized as a “disturbing development” the increase in attacks on UNTAC personnel and helicopters in Cambodia. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the implementation of Security Council resolution 783 (1992), UN Doc. S/24800, 15 November 1992, § 15.
UN Secretary-General
After an on-site investigation into the shelling of the UN compound at Qana on 18 April 1996, the UN Secretary-General’s Military Adviser reported:
Israeli officers stated that the Israeli forces were not aware at the time of the shelling that a large number of Lebanese civilians had taken refuge in the Qana compound. I did not pursue this question since I considered it irrelevant because the United Nations compound was not a legitimate target, whether or not civilians were in it. The Israeli officers emphasized that it was not Israeli policy to target civilians or the United Nations. 
UN Secretary-General, Report dated 1 May 1996 of the Secretary-General’s Military Adviser concerning the shelling of the UN compound at Qana on 18 April 1996, UN Doc. S/1996/337, 7 May 1996, §§ 7–8.
UN Secretary-General
In a letter submitting the Military Adviser’s report to the UN Security Council in 1996, the UN Secretary-General stated that he viewed “with utmost gravity the shelling of the [compound at Qana], as [he] would hostilities directed against any United Nations peace-keeping position”. 
UN Secretary-General, Letter dated 7 May 1996 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/1996/337, 7 May 1996, p. 1.
UN Secretary-General
In 1996, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General expressed his “regret that the UN once again had cause to call upon the parties … to respect the non-combatant status of … UN peacekeepers”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/1996/575, 20 July 1996, § 40.
UN Secretary-General
In 1996, in a report on the situation in Tajikistan, the UN Secretary-General condemned an attack aimed at two members of the CIS peacekeeping force. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the situation in Tajikistan, UN Doc. S/1996/1010, 5 December 1996, § 11.
UN Secretary-General
In 1997, in a report concerning the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, the UN Secretary-General reported that “mine-laying and attacks on the CIS peacekeeping force and the Abkhaz authorities also continued during the reporting period” and that “the CIS force, in conjunction with UNOMIG, again used the quadripartite meetings to protest against such actions”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, UN Doc. S/1997/47, 20 January 1997, § 22.
In a further such report in 1998, the UN Secretary-General condemned “attacks against peacekeepers of the United Nations and the CIS”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, UN Doc. S/1998/647, 14 July 1998, § 40.
UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General reported that UNIFIL had “at times encountered hostile reactions by both armed elements and IDF/DFF” and stated that “UNIFIL strongly protested [these] incidents”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/1998/652, 16 July 1998, § 8.
UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in an interim report on the situation in Tajikistan, the UN Secretary-General described the murder of four unarmed members of UNMOT involved in a peace mission in Tajikistan and stated he could not find words strong enough to condemn such an act. 
UN Secretary-General, Interim report on the situation in Tajikistan, UN Doc. S/1998/754, 13 August 1998, §§ 10 and 25.
UN Secretary-General
In 2000, in his report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, the UN Secretary-General stated:
Other serious violations of international humanitarian law falling within the jurisdiction of the Court include:
(b) Attacks against peacekeeping personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or a peacekeeping mission, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians under the international law of armed conflict … Attacks against peacekeeping personnel, to the extent that they are entitled to protection recognized under international law to civilians in armed conflict, do not represent a new crime. Although established for the first time as an international crime in the Statute of the International Criminal Court, it was not viewed at the time of the adoption of the Rome Statute as adding to the already existing customary international law crime of attacks against civilians and persons hors de combat. Based on the distinction between peacekeepers as civilians and peacekeepers turned combatants, the crime defined in article 4 of the Statute of the Special Court is a specification of a targeted group within the generally protected group of civilians which because of its humanitarian or peacekeeping mission deserves special protection. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/2000/915, 4 October 2000, §§ 15(b) and 16.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) stated that if
individuals attacked or authorized attacks on United Nations forces … they would be committing a grave breach of article 85, paragraph 3(a), of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I by making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack. In the Sarajevo context, United Nations peace-keepers are non-combatants and entitled to be treated as civilians. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final Report, UN Doc. S/1994/674, 27 May 1994, § 204.
Economic Community of West African States
In a communiqué issued in 1992, ECOWAS “unreservedly condemned the unprovoked and premeditated aggression by the NPFL [National Patriotic Front of Liberia] against ECOMOG forces in Liberia, and expressed full support for the defensive action taken by ECOMOG”. 
ECOWAS, Final communiqué of the first Summit Meeting of the Committee of Nine of ECOWAS on the Liberian Crisis, Abuja, 7 November 1992, annexed to Letter dated 13 November 1992 from Benin to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24812, 16 November 1992, § 9.
European Union
In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the EU condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
EU, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3367, 21 April 1994, p. 13.
OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
In 1992, the OIC Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted a resolution in which it condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Res. 1/6-EX, 1–2 December 1992.
Organization of the Islamic Conference
In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) condemned attacks against UNPROFOR. 
OIC, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3367, 21 April 1994, p. 25.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1992)
The 88th Inter-Parliamentary Conference held in Stockholm in 1992 adopted a resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina strongly condemning “the escalation of violence by armed attacks against … peace-keeping personnel” and insisting “that such attacks cease immediately”. 
88th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Stockholm, 7–12 September 1992, Resolution on support to the recent international initiatives to halt the violence and put an end to the violations of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 5.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 demanded that “the members of peace-keeping forces be permitted to fulfil their mandate without hindrance and that their physical integrity be respected”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I(7), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 299.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1993)
The 90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference held in Canberra in 1993 adopted a resolution deploring “the lack of protection for peace-keepers and peace-makers under current humanitarian law”. 
90th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Canberra, 13–18 September 1993, Resolution on respect for international humanitarian law and support for humanitarian action in armed conflicts, preamble.
International Criminal Court
In the Abu Garda case, the accused, Chairman and General Coordinator of Military Operations of the United Resistance Front in Darfur, Sudan, was charged, inter alia, with the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units and vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission, within the meaning of Articles 8(2)(e)(iii) and 25(3)(a) of the 1998 ICC Statute. In its decision on the confirmation of charges in 2010, the Pre-Trial Chamber stated:
61. The war crime provided for in article 8 (2)(e)(iii) of the [1998 ICC] Statute is defined as “intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the [1945] Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.”
62. According to the [2000 ICC] Elements of Crimes, for the conduct in question to constitute the crime provided for in article 8 (2)(e)(iii) of the Statute, the following subjective and objective elements are required:
1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
2. The object of the attack was personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The perpetrator intended such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles so involved to be the object of the attack.
4. Such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were entitled to that protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protection.
6. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict not of an international character.
7. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
63. The Majority will first analyse the objective elements before turning to the subjective elements.
a. Objective Elements
i. The perpetrator directed an attack
64. The Majority notes that there is no definition of the term “attack” in the Statute or in the Elements of Crimes. Taking into consideration the reference to “the established framework of international law” in the chapeau of article 8 (2)(e) of the Statute, and the reference to the “applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict” in article 21(l)(b) of the Statute, the Majority is of the view that it must refer in this regard to the four Geneva Conventions adopted on 12 August 1949 and their two Additional Protocols adopted on 8 June 1977.
65. The term “attack” is defined in article 49 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (“API”) as “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence”. Although the definition of an attack is in API, which is only applicable to international armed conflicts, this term is given the same meaning in article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II (“APII”), which applies to armed conflicts not of an international character. Furthermore, unlike article 85 (3) of API, article 8 (2)(e)(iii) of the Statute does not require any material result or any harmful impact on the personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in the peacekeeping mission which are being targeted by the attack.
66. Another essential part of this element is the need for a causal connection between the perpetrator and the attack. The requirement that “the perpetrator” directed the attack indicates that, for this particular crime, a causal link between the perpetrator’s conduct and the consequence is necessary, so that the concrete consequence, the attack in this case, can be seen as having been caused by the perpetrator.
67. A determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that a person committed the crime in issue will depend on the assessment of the precise form of participation under articles 25 and 28 of the Statute for which that person was charged. However, as commentators have pointed out:
No matter whether one starts from the final act which constitutes the crime and moves up the chain of causation, or whether one starts from the initial conduct that brought about the final result and seeks to identify contributing causal factors, the relationship between the final result and any causal conduct must be established. Such causal connection can be of a direct nature or of a contributing one and it must be established through a rational causal connection.
ii. The object of the attack was personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
68. According to the Elements of Crimes, the second element requires that the “object of the attack was personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
69. While noting the requirement that the peacekeeping mission be established in accordance with the UN Charter, as analysed below, the Majority considers it worth emphasizing that the UN Charter: does not define “peacekeeping”, nor does it mention the term. “Peacekeeping” developed out of practical experience, and has been described by the United Nations as a “unique and dynamic instrument developed by the Organization as a way to help countries torn by conflict create the conditions for lasting peace.”
70. The United Nations further states that the term “peacekeeping […] defies simple definition” and that “[o]ver the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing political landscape […] UN peacekeeping continues to evolve, both conceptually and operationally, to meet new challenges and political realities.”
71. The Majority thus notes that peacekeeping missions are not static and that their features may vary depending, inter alia, on the context in which they operate. However, despite the absence of any specific legal basis in the UN Charter and having regard to the evolving nature of such missions, the Majority notes that three basic principles are accepted as determining whether a given mission constitutes a peacekeeping mission, namely (i) consent of the parties; (ii) impartiality; and (iii) the non-use of force except in self-defence.
72. More specifically in relation to the consent of the parties, the Majority acknowledges the fact that the consent of the host State is a prerequisite for a peacekeeping mission to be stationed on its territory and that, accordingly, such consent must be obtained. Consent of the main parties to the conflict is also sought in practice. In this regard, although the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (the “Brahimi Report”) states that “consent of local parties […] should remain [one of] the bedrock principles of peacekeeping,” as stated by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in its 2 March 2009 Judgment, in non-international armed conflicts, “consent is obtained from the warring parties, not out of legal obligation, but rather to ensure the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operation.” [SCSL, Sesay case, Judgement, § 226]
73. With regard to the impartiality requirement, it is worth noting that according, inter alia, to the Brahimi Report and the “United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines” (hereinafter the “UN Peacekeeping Principles and Guidelines”), impartiality is not to be confused with neutrality or inactivity. The Majority notes in particular the UN Peacekeeping Principles and Guidelines according to which:
United Nations peacekeeping operations must implement their mandate without favour or prejudice to any party. Impartiality is crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main parties, but should not be confused with neutrality or inactivity. United Nations peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict, but not neutral in their execution of their mandate […] Notwithstanding the need to establish and maintain good relations with the parties, a peacekeeping operation must scrupulously avoid activities that might compromise its image of impartiality. A mission should not shy away from a rigorous application of the principle of impartiality for fear of misinterpretation or retaliation, but before acting it is always prudent to ensure the grounds for acting are well-established and can be clearly communicated to all […] Where the peacekeeping operation is required to counter such breaches, it must do so with transparency, openness and effective communication as to the rationale and appropriate nature of its response.
74. The Majority, moreover, notes the distinction between those peacekeeping missions which may only use force in self-defence and the so-called peace-enforcement missions established by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which have a mandate or are authorized to use force beyond self-defence in order to achieve their objective. Similarly, the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel excludes from its scope “a United Nations operation authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies.”
75. Finally, the Statute also requires the peacekeeping mission to be established “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” The Majority is of the view that such a condition is not tantamount to a requirement that the mission be established by the United Nations only, and shall be understood to encompass also missions that are otherwise foreseen by the UN Charter.
76. In this regard, the Majority notes that pursuant to article 52 (1) of the UN Charter, “[n]othing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”. The term “arrangements or agencies” has been analysed as meaning “a union of States or an international organization based upon a collective treaty or a constitution and consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, whose primary task is the maintenance of peace and security under the control and within the framework of the United Nations.” The only limitation on the activity of these regional arrangements or agencies with regard to the maintenance of peace and security is set out in article 53 (1) of the UN Charter, which states that “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council”.
iii. Such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilians objects under the international law of armed conflict
77. The Majority notes that an attack against a peacekeeping mission constitutes a crime under the Statute as long as its personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.
Protection given to civilians
78. Article 13 (3) of APII provides that “civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by [Part IV of the Protocol], unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”. The same exclusion applies, under article 2(2) of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, to personnel engaged as combatants.
79. In this respect, article 50(1) of API defines civilians as “any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4(A)(1),(2),(3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol.”
80. On the other hand, neither treaty law nor customary law expressly define what constitutes direct participation in hostilities. However, the Commentary to article 13 of APII provides guidance as to its meaning. According to the Commentary, “[h]ostilities have been defined as ‘acts of war’ that by their nature or purpose struck at the personnel and ‘matériel’ of enemy armed forces.” The Commentary further indicates that taking direct part in hostilities “implies that there is a sufficient causal relationship between the act of participation and its immediate consequences.”
81. Furthermore, in the Appeal Judgement in the Strugar case, the ICTY gave examples of “direct participation in hostilities”, as recognised in “military manuals, soft law, decisions of international bodies and the commentaries to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols”. These examples include: bearing, using or taking up arms, taking part in military or hostile acts, activities, conduct or operations, armed fighting or combat, participating in attacks against enemy personnel, property or equipment, transmitting military information for the immediate use of a belligerent, and transporting weapons in proximity to combat operations.
82. In the Lubanga case, the Chamber also held, in relation to the use of children under the age of fifteen years to actively participate in hostilities, that active participation in hostilities “means not only direct participation in hostilities, combat in other words, but also covers active participation in combat-related activities […] .” [ICC, Lubanga case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, § 261]
83. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Majority concludes that, under the Statute, personnel involved in peacekeeping missions enjoy protection from attacks unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities or in combat-related activities. The Majority also finds that such protection does not cease if such persons only use armed force in exercise of their right to self-defence. Finally, and adopting the precedent of the ICTY, the Majority finds that any determination as to whether a person is directly participating in hostilities must be carried out on a case-by-case basis.
84. The Majority notes the non-exhaustive list of criteria established by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, in its 2 March, 2009 Judgment in order to determine whether peacekeeping personnel or objects of a peacekeeping mission were entitled to protection. That case before the Special Court for Sierra Leone was, however, limited to attacks on peacekeeping personnel, as the indictment did not contain allegations of attacks against installations, material, units or ‘vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission. By contrast, the issue in the present count before this Chamber is the lawfulness of an attack not only on the personnel but also on the objects involved in a peacekeeping mission.
Protection given to civilian objects
85. The Majority notes that, while international humanitarian law offers protection to all civilians in both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an international character, the same cannot be said of all civilian objects, in respect of which protection differs according to the nature of the conflict. Whereas article 52 of API provides for “general protection of civilian objects” during international armed conflict, such broad protection is not explicitly provided under Additional Protocol II, which only affords protection to a limited number of civilian objects. The negotiators of the Statute were certainly aware of this marked difference between international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an international character. Accordingly, the war crime of attacking civilian objects described in article 8 (2)(b)(ii) has no equivalent in article 8 (2)(e) of the Statute, which pertains to armed conflict not of an international character.
86. During discussions within the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, the Governments of Belgium, Costa Rica, Finland, Hungary, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and the Permanent Observer Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations submitted to the Working Group on Elements of Crimes a paper prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on, inter alia, the elements of article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute. In this document it was argued that, although there is no comparable provision under APII to article 52 of API, “the indication found in [the latter] for when an object is no longer entitled to protection as a civilian object might be of relevance in a non-international armed conflict as well”.
87. In three international instruments, a definition identical to that in article 52 of Additional Protocol I was used to describe what was meant by a “military objective” and hence, a contrario, a civilian object, in both international armed conflict and armed conflict not of an international character. In article 2(6) of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, “military objective” means, as far as objects are concerned, “any object which by its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”. A similar definition can be found in article 1(f) of the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted on 26 March 1999, and in Article 1(3) of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. On the basis of the first two texts, the ICRC paper submitted during the Preparatory Commission concluded that “an object is entitled to protection, unless and for such time as it is used to make an effective contribution to the military action of a party to a conflict”.
88. In its study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, the ICRC identifies four rules on the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives, which are considered customary law in relation to both international and non-international armed conflicts. Of particular relevance is rule 8, which establishes that the definition of military objective in article 52 (2) of API is also applicable, as a customary rule of international humanitarian law, to armed conflict not of an international character.
89. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Majority concludes that installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character shall not be considered military objectives, and thus shall be entitled to the protection given to civilian objects, unless and for such time as their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to the military action of a party to a conflict and insofar as their total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
iv. The conduct took place in the context of, and was associated with, an armed conflict not of an international character
90. The Majority recalls that a crime has taken place in the context of, or in association with, an armed conflict where “the alleged crimes were closely related to the hostilities.” This means that the armed conflict “must play a substantial role in the perpetrator’s decision, in his or her ability to commit the crime or in the manner in which the conduct was ultimately committed.”
91. As this Chamber has already held in the Lubanga case, “the involvement of armed groups with some degree of organisation and the ability to plan and carry out sustained military operations would allow for the conflict to be characterised as an armed conflict not of an international character.” [ICC, Lubanga case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, § 233] In addition, “the armed groups in “question [need] to have the ability to plan and carry out military operations for a prolonged period of time.” [ICC, Lubanga case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, § 234]
92. In the view of the Majority, it is not necessary for the armed conflict to have been regarded as the ultimate reason for the criminal conduct, nor must the conduct have taken place in the midst of battle. It should however, be related to it, because “criminal acts or offences unrelated to the armed conflict are not considered to be war crimes.”
b. Subjective elements
i. The perpetrator intended such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles so involved to be the object of the attack
93. The Majority notes that this subjective element is similar to that found in the Elements of Crimes for articles 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i) concerning attacks on civilians, whether in international armed conflict or in armed conflict not of an international character. In this regard, the Chamber held in the Katanga and Ngudjolo case that, “in addition to the standard mens rea requirement provided in article 30 of the Statute, the perpetrator must intend to make individual civilians not taking direct part in the hostilities or the civilian population the object of the attack. This offence therefore, first and foremost, encompasses dolus directus of the first degree”. [ICC, Katanga and Chui case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, § 271] The Majority considers that this finding is also applicable to article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute in relation both to attacks on personnel involved in a peacekeeping mission and to attacks on installations, materials, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission.
ii. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the protection
94. The Majority is of the view that this fifth element under article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Elements of Crimes excludes the defence of mistake of law provided for in article 32 of the Statute, as only knowledge in relation to facts establishing that the installations, material, units or vehicles and personnel were involved in a peacekeeping mission is necessary, and not legal knowledge pertaining to the protection thereof.
iii. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict
95. The Majority notes that the Introduction to article 8 of the Elements of Crimes explains that:
With respect to the last two elements listed for each crime:
- There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international;
- In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international;
- There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with”.
96. As the Chamber has already held in this regard, this provision does not go as far as to require the perpetrator to conclude, “on the basis of a legal assessment of the said circumstances, that there was an armed conflict” [ICC, Lubanga case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, § 260]. 
ICC, Abu Garda case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 8 February 2010, §§ 61–96.
[footnotes in original omitted; emphasis in original]
International Criminal Court
In its decision on the confirmation of charges in the Banda and Jerbo case in 2011, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I stated:
60. The war crime provided for in article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the [1998 ICC] Statute is defined as “intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.”
61. The Chamber reiterates the Majority’s legal interpretation of each of the elements of the crime provided for in article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute as set out in paragraphs 64 to 94 of the Abu Garda Decision. It will however conduct a factual analysis in order to establish whether each of the elements is supported by the evidence, in light of the legal interpretation given to them.
3.1 Objective elements of the crime
62. According to the Elements of Crimes, the following objective elements are required in order to constitute the crime provided for in article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute: (i) the perpetrator directed an attack; (ii) the object of the attack was personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the UN; (iii) such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were entitled to the protection afforded to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.
3.2 Subjective elements of the crime
65. In accordance with the Elements of Crimes, for the crime under article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute to be established, the subjective elements (specific intent) of the offence must also be present. More specifically, it must be established that (i) the perpetrator intended personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the UN to be the object of the attack; and that (ii) the perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict.
66. The Chamber recalls the findings made in the Abu Garda Case that AMIS [African Union Mission in Sudan] personnel “enjoy protection from attacks unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities or in combat-related activities”. Likewise, AMIS installations, material, units or vehicles “shall be entitled to the protection given to civilian objects, unless and for such time as their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to the military action of a party to a conflict and insofar as their total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”.
67. Article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute therefore requires the perpetrators’ awareness of the factual circumstances that on the day of the attack established the protection both of AMIS personnel and of AMIS installations, material, units and vehicles. 
ICC, Banda and Jerbo case, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 7 March 2011, §§ 60–62 and 65–67.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The charges against Mr Banda and Mr Jerbo related to alleged war crimes. The Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed the charges. 
ICC, Banda and Jerbo case, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 7 March 2011, § 164.
By decision of the ICC Trial Chamber IV of 4 October 2013, proceedings against Mr Jerbo were terminated because of evidence pointing towards his death. 
ICC, Banda and Jerbo case, Decision Terminating the Proceedings against Mr Jerbo, 4 October 2013.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the first indictment in the Karadžić and Mladić case before the ICTY in 1995, the accused were charged with their role in the “taking of civilians, that is UN peacekeepers, as hostages”. 
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, First Indictment, 24 July 1995, § 48.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Bockarie case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, a senior member of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, was charged with:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission, an OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, punishable under Article 4.b. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone]. 
SCSL, Bockarie case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 61, Count 14.
[emphasis in original]
It was alleged that:
Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September 2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL [United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone] peacekeepers … within the Republic of Sierra Leone … These attacks included unlawful killing of UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers … who were then held hostage. 
SCSL, Bockarie case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 61.
Due to the accused’s death, the indictment was withdrawn. 
SCSL, Bockarie case, Withdrawal of Indictment, 8 December 2003.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Koroma case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, the leader of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), a senior leader of the AFRC/Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a senior member of the Junta regime, and exercising the powers of the president of the Republic of Sierra Leone from May 1997 to February 1998, was charged, inter alia, with:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission, an OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, punishable under Article 4.b. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone]. 
SCSL, Koroma case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 59, Count 14.
[emphasis in original]
It was alleged that:
Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September 2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL [United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone] peacekeepers … within the Republic of Sierra Leone … These attacks included unlawful killing of UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers … who were then held hostage. 
SCSL, Koroma case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 59.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Sankoh case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a senior leader in the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF, and a senior member of the Junta regime, was charged, inter alia, with:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission, an OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, punishable under Article 4.b. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone]. 
SCSL, Sankoh case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 62, Count 14.
[emphasis in original]
It was alleged that:
Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September 2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL [United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone] peacekeepers … within the Republic of Sierra Leone … These attacks included unlawful killing of UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers … who were then held hostage. 
SCSL, Sankoh case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 62.
Due to the accused’s death, the indictment was withdrawn. 
SCSL, Sankoh case, Withdrawal of Indictment, 8 December 2003.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Sesay case before the SCSL in 2006, the accused Sesay and Kallon, senior commanders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, and the accused Gbao, senior commander in the RUF and AFRC/RUF forces, were charged, inter alia, with:
Intentionally directing attacks against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission, an OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, punishable under Article 4.b. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone]. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Corrected Amended Consolidated Indictment, 2 August 2006, § 83, Count 15.
[emphasis in original]
It was alleged that:
Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September 2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL [United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone] peacekeepers … within the Republic of Sierra Leone … These attacks included unlawful killing of UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers … who were then held hostage. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Corrected Amended Consolidated Indictment, 2 August 2006, § 83.
In its judgment in the case in 2009, the Trial Chamber set out the definition of the offence of intentionally directing attacks against personnel involved in a peacekeeping mission in accordance with the 1945 UN Charter, stating:
214. The offence of attacking personnel or objects involved in a … peacekeeping mission was first explicitly identified as a war crime in the [1998] ICC Statute. This Judgement is the first to specifically address the nature and scope of this offence.
215. The prohibition against attacks on peacekeeping personnel does not represent a new crime. Instead, as personnel and objects involved in a peacekeeping mission are only protected to the extent that “they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict”, this offence can be seen as a particularisation of the general and fundamental prohibition in international humanitarian law against attacks on civilians and civilian objects.
216. It is common knowledge that United Nations observer and peacekeeping missions have traditionally relied on their identification as United Nations representatives to ensure that their personnel and equipment are not targeted. As attacks on United Nations personnel have increased, in particular since the 1990s, these attacks have been condemned and criminalised. The Chamber takes cognisance of the observation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (“ICRC”) that “no official contrary practice was found. Attacks against peacekeeping personnel and objects have generally been condemned by States.” This Chamber notes further that they have also been condemned by the United Nations and other international organisations, which have in some cases specifically condemned attacks on United Nations personnel in internal conflicts. We further note that some of these condemnations have explicitly characterised these acts as criminal.
217. In addition, the Chamber observes that the [1994] Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel specifically criminalised attacks against United Nations and associated personnel as an offence subject to universal jurisdiction. Moreover, a rule similar to that set out in the Statute is contained in some military manuals. This Chamber notes further that it is an offence to attack personnel and other objects involved in a peacekeeping mission under the legislation of many States.
218. The Chamber considers the condemnation and criminalisation of intentional attacks against personnel and objects involved in a … peacekeeping mission by States and international organisations, the finding of the ICRC and the inclusion of the offence in the ICC Statute in 1998 demonstrate State practice and opinio juris. The Chamber is also of the view that this offence is a particularisation of the general and fundamental prohibition in international humanitarian law, in both international and internal conflicts, against attacking civilians and civilian property. This Chamber is, therefore, satisfied that this offence existed in customary international law in both international and non-international conflicts and entailed individual criminal responsibility at the time of the acts alleged in the Indictment.
219. The Chamber holds that the elements of the offence of intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations are as follows:
(i) The Accused directed an attack against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a … peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
(ii) The Accused intended such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles to be the object of the attack;
(iii) Such personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were entitled to that protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict; and
(iv) The Accused knew or had reason to know that the personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were protected.
220. In the view of the Chamber, the primary object of the attack must be the personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission. There exists no requirement that there be actual damage to the personnel or objects as a result of the attack and this Chamber opines that the mere attack is the gravamen of the crime. The Chamber adopts the definition of attack in Article 49(1) of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I as an “act of violence”. Insofar as non-international armed conflict is concerned, the Chamber holds that the same meaning applies to the term “attack” in [the 1977] Additional Protocol II. Furthermore, the Chamber notes that attacks are narrower in scope than “military operations.” 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, §§ 214–220.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Trial Chamber then considered the definition of a peacekeeping mission, stating:
221. The Chamber observes that there is no jurisprudence defining a “peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” The Charter of the United Nations does not make reference to peacekeeping missions. The concept of peacekeeping was developed through the practice of the United Nations as a means of achieving the goals of its Charter regarding the maintenance of international peace and security. In the pursuance of these goals, peacekeeping missions have been used by the United Nations for 60 years.
222. Peacekeeping missions are generally formally created by a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. This Chamber is of the view that the legal basis for the creation of peacekeeping missions falls either within Chapter VI, which allows the [UN] Security Council to take non-binding measures to settle disputes between State parties, or within Chapter VI in conjunction with Chapter VII, which allows the Security Council to adopt binding enforcement measures that are necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. It is noteworthy that in practice, the Security Council has never referred to Chapter VI in its resolutions establishing peacekeeping forces. Commentators have noted that the legal basis for peacekeeping missions is of no practical significance as peacekeeping missions are deployed with the consent of the parties and their legitimacy is no longer questioned.
223. It is likewise important to mention that in more recent times, the Security Council has referred to Chapter VII in resolutions that establish peacekeeping missions in difficult or unstable situations, typically in relation to internal conflicts, in order to provide more robust mandates to the peacekeepers and to demonstrate the Security Council’s resolve. Further, this Chamber observes that the Security Council has, on occasion, established multidimensional peacekeeping missions under Chapter VII with extremely broad mandates that included civilian administration.
224. Significantly, the Chamber recognises that the United Nations has traditionally defined a peacekeeping mission as “involving military personnel, but without enforcement powers, undertaken by the United Nations to help maintain or restore international peace and security in areas of conflict”. Peacekeeping missions have, however, evolved to be more complex and multifunctional, and the United Nations currently defines peacekeeping as follows:
Peacekeeping is a technique designed to preserve the peace, however fragile, where fighting has been halted, and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers. Over the years, peacekeeping has evolved from a primarily military model of observing cease-fires and the separation of forces after inter-state wars, to incorporate a complex mode of many elements – military, police and civilian – working together to help lay the foundations for sustainable peace.
225. In the Chamber’s considered view, three basic principles are widely understood as the necessary foundation for a peacekeeping operation: consent of the parties, impartiality, and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
226. In practice, the peacekeeping force will be deployed with the consent of the main parties to a conflict. In non-international conflicts, this consent is obtained from the warring parties, not out of legal obligation, but rather to ensure the effectiveness of the peacekeeping operation.
227. The peacekeeping force is to remain impartial in their dealings with the parties, which should not be confused with absolute neutrality. This impartiality must involve the “adherence to the principles of the Charter and the objectives of a mandate” and thus the peacekeeping operation “should not condone actions by the parties that violate the undertakings of the peace process or international norms and principles”.
228. The peacekeepers are only authorised to use force in self-defence. It is now settled law that the concept of self-defence for these missions has evolved to include the “right to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent the peacekeeping operation from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council.” The Chamber acknowledges that the operative United Nations doctrine on this issue is that peacekeeping operations should only use force as a measure of last resort, when other means have failed.
229. The Chamber notes that the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel does not refer to peacekeeping missions, but rather “United Nations operations”:
“United Nations operation” means an operation established by the competent organ of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and conducted under United Nations authority and control:
(i) Where the operation is for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or
(ii) Where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared, for the purposes of this Convention, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation. […]
230. It is noteworthy that peacekeeping should be understood as distinct from enforcement actions authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII. Article 42 of the United Nations Charter allows the Security Council to “take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.” In practice, the Security Council has authorised member States or coalitions of member States to conduct military enforcement action on a voluntary rather than mandatory basis. By opposition to peacekeeping operations, enforcement action does not rely on the consent of the States concerned, but on the binding authority of the Security Council under Chapter VII.
231. This Chamber further observes that the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel expressly excludes from its application those United Nations operations “authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organised armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies.”
232. It is the Chamber’s view that the second element reflects that this offence has a specific intent mens rea. The Accused must have therefore intended that the personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles of the peacekeeping mission be the primary object of the attack.
233. The Chamber holds that the third element requires that such personnel or objects be entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict. In the Chamber’s view, common sense dictates that peacekeepers are considered to be civilians only insofar as they fall within the definition of civilians laid down for non-combatants in customary international law and under Additional Protocol II as discussed above – namely, that they do not take a direct part in hostilities. It is also the Chamber’s view that by force of logic, personnel of peacekeeping missions are entitled to protection as long as they are not taking a direct part in the hostilities – and thus have become combatants – at the time of the alleged offence. Where peacekeepers become combatants, they can be legitimate targets for the extent of their participation in accordance with international humanitarian law. As with all civilians, their protection would not cease if the personnel use armed force only in exercising their right to individual self-defence. Likewise, the Chamber opines that the use of force by peacekeepers in self-defence in the discharge of their mandate, provided that it is limited to such use, would not alter or diminish the protection afforded to peacekeepers.
234. In determining whether the peacekeeping personnel or objects of a peacekeeping mission are entitled to civilian protection, the Chamber must consider the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the alleged offence, including, inter alia, the relevant Security Council resolutions for the operation, the specific operational mandates, the role and practices actually adopted by the peacekeeping mission during the particular conflict, their rules of engagement and operational orders, the nature of the arms and equipment used by the peacekeeping force, the interaction between the peacekeeping force and the parties involved in the conflict, any use of force between the peacekeeping force and the parties in the conflict, the nature and frequency of such force and the conduct of the alleged victim(s) and their fellow personnel.
235. With regard to the mens rea of the offence, the Chamber opines that the Prosecution is obliged to prove that the Accused must have known or had reason to know that the personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles were protected. It is not necessary to establish that the Accused actually had legal knowledge of the protection to which the personnel and objects were entitled under international humanitarian law, but the Accused must have been aware of the factual basis for that protection. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, §§ 221–235.
[footnotes in original omitted]
In its judgment in 2009, the Appeals Chamber, in considering the status of UN peacekeepers as civilians, stated:
527. The Trial Chamber held that, as a matter of common sense, peacekeepers are considered to be civilians to the extent that they fall within the definition of civilians in international humanitarian law. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber found they are “entitled to protection as long as they are not taking a direct part in the hostilities … at the time of the alleged offence.” [SCSL, Sesay case, Judgement, § 233]
529. In determining whether peacekeepers are entitled to the protection afforded to civilians, the Trial Chamber rightly held that it must consider “the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the alleged offence.” [SCSL, Sesay case, Judgement, § 234] This includes, inter alia:
the relevant Security Council resolutions for the operation, the specific operational mandates, the role and practices actually adopted by the peacekeeping mission during the particular conflict, their rules of engagement and operational orders, the nature of the arms and equipment used by the peacekeeping force, the interaction between the peacekeeping force and the parties involved in the conflict, any use of force between peacekeeping force and the parties in the conflict, the nature and frequency of such force and the conduct of the alleged victim(s) and their fellow personnel.
The Appeals Chamber notes that, of these factors, the most important are those that relate to the facts on the ground, in particular, any use of force by the peacekeeping mission.
531. … The Appeals Chamber notes that it is settled law that peacekeepers – like civilians – are entitled to use force in self-defence; such use does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment on Appeal, 26 October 2009, §§ 527, 529 and 531.
[footnotes in original omitted]
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
A United Nations Force engaged to separate opposing armed forces is not a Party to the conflict … Located between opposing armed forces and not being a Party to the conflict, the United Nations Force has no enemy. Its situation is analogous to that of the armed forces of a neutral State. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 248.
No data.