Conflict resolution through UN peacekeeping missions: too state-centered, too universal?

by Matthias Neef

UN peacekeeping missions are supposed to create positive and sustainable peace. Peace and conflict research often accuses them of not taking sufficient account of local contexts. But is this really the case?

Violent intrastate conflicts are highly complex and dynamic. At the same time, every civil war is unique and context-specific. Accordingly, conflict resolution and peacebuilding measures must be adapted and context-sensitive. Paternalism and blueprints are out of place here. Nevertheless, the United Nations is accused of being too state-centric and universalistic in its peace missions. This not only reduces the effectiveness and sustainability of the measures. What's more, peace missions could promote conflict and produce new violence. However, this criticism is itself problematic. Too often it remains at an abstract theoretical level and provides too little empirical evidence.

This article argues for a differentiated view of the conflict-solving and peace-building measures of the United Nations. To this end, it is essential to consider both the UN's guidelines for its civilian personnel and their practical implementation in the context of UN peacekeeping missions.

The United Nations and the local level

The selection and development of appropriate methods for sustainable conflict resolution requires an examination of the local conditions in the respective areas of operation. For peace practitioners, the cultural conditions on the ground are of crucial importance: culture influences the understanding of the problem, the choice of solution strategy and the procedural approach of the actors involved.[i] Sustainable peace policy measures grow organically. The task of external actors can therefore only be a supporting one. Knowledge of the local culture is a prerequisite for this.

Contrary to academic criticism, the United Nations is not only aware of the need for cultural sensitivity, it has also enshrined this principle in numerous resolutions, reports and manuals. With the establishment of multidimensional peace missions in the 1990s, the United Nations underwent a paradigm shift and opened itself up to the local, i.e. domestic, level. This "local turn" is exemplified in the UN Handbook for Multidimensional Peace Missions: Missions should limit their interventions to those measures that are appropriate to the local culture and context and are geared towards the needs and goals of society in the country of deployment.

As promising as this sounds in theory, it is difficult to put these guidelines into practice. African countries pose a particular challenge here. Two parallel systems of conflict resolution exist there, which are based on very different and sometimes contradictory legal principles and practices: the formal legal system on the one hand and the informal customary law system on the other. While the former was established by force by former colonial powers, the latter is historically and culturally anchored in the respective societies.

Legal dualism is also reflected within the United Nations. The UN Civil Affairs Section is a pioneer for peacebuilding measures at the local level and has a wealth of experience with customary law systems. Its specialist personnel are usually the first to be stationed in even the most remote regions of the country, where the state has historically played only a marginal role - if any at all. Conflicts here are resolved by chiefs, village elders and other social groups according to traditional and oral law. The Civil Affairs Handbook stipulates that local practices, institutions and laws for conflict resolution must be researched and international measures adapted accordingly.

A different understanding of the role of local practices in conflict resolution determines the strategies of the UN Rule of Law Section. According to the Handbook for UN Legal Experts, it is also intended to strengthen local capacities and not replace them. However, the focus of its work is clearly on formal actors, institutions and practices. The handbook states that customary law systems in Africa are more popular, more accessible and less expensive, while the formal system is usually perceived as foreign, corrupt, slow and expensive. Nevertheless, customary law is largely denied its function and legitimacy. It is seen as unsuitable for dealing with serious legal violations and also as non-compliant with international standards. For this reason, it is only suitable for resolving minor civil disputes.

What does practice show?

Liberia is an interesting case study when considering the involvement of the local level in conflict resolution by the United Nations. The country is characterized by a long history of violent conquest and oppression. The conflict between informal and formal law is also clearly evident in the Liberian case.

The "love of freedom" (Liberia's motto) brought American settlers and freed American slaves to the populated West African coast from 1817 onwards, where they founded the state of Liberia in 1847. They copied Liberia's social and state system from the American model. The state of Liberia expanded steadily, and local ethnic groups were expelled from their land or violently suppressed and subjugated. A two-class society with enormous contrasts emerged. Continuous uprisings from the beginning finally led to a cruel civil war in 1989, which lasted (with interruptions) until 2003 and cost more than 250,000 lives.

Experts from the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission came to the conclusion in their final report in 2009 that the violent course of history could have been avoided. The settlers should have simply recognized the authority and legal norms of the local population instead of conquering and dominating the country with all their might.

Based on Security Council Resolution 1509, the United Nations deployed a 15,000-strong multidimensional peacekeeping mission(UNMIL) to Liberia in 2003 to restore law and order in the country. The mandate has been continuously adapted and now includes reforming the judiciary and security agencies, promoting human rights and national reconciliation measures. Capacity building includes both formal institutions (e.g. through the UN Rule of Law) and informal institutions (e.g. through UN Civil Affairs), with the aim of harmonizing formal and informal law.

Studies(1)(2) have shown that many Liberians prefer informal legal systems to formal ones. Formal administration and enforcement of justice involving the police, courts and prisons are perceived as highly corrupt, unfair, exclusive and alien. Punishment is at the heart of the formal system. It is therefore oriented towards the past. Reparation and reconciliation do not take place here. Even if the formal system met international standards, most Liberians would not be satisfied with it.[ii] It does not do justice to the local context of Liberia.

Informal justice systems are culturally rooted, affordable and generally considered fair. Conflicts are primarily resolved through arbitration, mediation or compromise. Punishment plays a subordinate role. It is more important to pacify the conflicting parties. It is remarkable that the cohesion of the social group plays a prominent role in the informal legal practice of one of the poorest countries in the world. In contrast to the formal, punitive legal system, the informal system is thus future-oriented.

The United Nations Office for Civilian Affairs has recognized this and is aligning its measures accordingly with the prevailing customary law system. Together with the Liberian Ministry of the Interior and local NGOs, for example, local peace committees have been set up in which local authorities resolve civil conflicts. The committees are based on the traditional system of palava huts, which are a popular and effective forum for conflict resolution in Liberia. At the same time, local methods of conflict resolution are being further developed. Mediation training and education courses have been held, for example, and women and young people are given more rights in the committees than was previously the case. However, this has led to new conflicts in some places, as Liberia's society is extremely patriarchal, especially in the north-west of the country.

The UN Rule of Law Division is engaged in capacity building in the areas of justice, police and prisons. Discussions with UN legal and human rights experts make it clear that - in contrast to their colleagues in the civil affairs sector - they consider the formal system to be the only one worth supporting. Customary law, despite its popularity and effectiveness, is seen as incompatible with international legal standards. Accordingly, efforts are being made to further restrict the jurisdiction of customary law institutions. This is also based on judgments handed down before the civil war, under conditions of authoritarian rule.

Lessons learned

The UN Section for Civilian Affairs is a pioneer in local conflict resolution and sees itself as an adaptable and adaptive institution for peace policy advice. It strives for the best possible balance between local principles and international norms. Minor conflicts are unavoidable. However, they have not yet succeeded in bringing together formal and informal institutions. The resolutions of the informal peace committees are merely recommendations, as law enforcement is reserved for state institutions. As there is hardly any exchange with the Ministry of Justice, little will change in this dichotomy for the time being.

The UN Rule of Law Division is state-centered and prefers the formal system. It actively promotes the marginalization of customary institutions, practices and laws. This is not only contrary to the interests of many Liberians. It is tantamount to a repetition of Liberia's problematic history. Above all, it creates one thing: a justice vacuum.[iii] The police, courts and prisons will not be able to adequately fulfill their roles in the long term. Even the inadequate Liberian state budget of around 620 million US dollars per year speaks against this capital-intensive system.

The investigation of the UN peacekeeping mission in Liberia has shown that the criticism of peacekeeping missions is only partially valid. The civil affairs measures are neither state-centric nor are they based on universal concepts - unlike the rule of law measures. However, neither formal nor informal systems of conflict resolution should be romanticized. Both have their specific advantages and disadvantages. In view of the historical development of Liberian statehood, however, the solution can neither be to continue with legal dualism nor to declare one of the systems superior. Rather, creative and progressive solutions are required. The formula for this is 1+1=3. The advantages of both systems should merge into a coherent and consistent system that reflects the circumstances and possibilities of the local context. This is also how the local population sees it.[iv] The measures of international peace actors should be aligned with this.

SOURCES

[i] Faure, Guy Olivier (2009): Culture and Conflict Resolution. In: Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk, I. William Zartman (Eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 506-524.

[ii] Isser, Deborah H.; Lubkemann, Stephen C.; N'Tow, Saah (2009): Looking for Justice. Liberian Experiences with and Perceptions of Local Justice Options. United States Institute of Peace. Washington (Peaceworks No. 63). http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PW63-Looking%20for%20Justice-Liberian%20Experiences%20with%20and%20Perceptions%20of%20Local%20Justice%20Options.pdf

[iii] Schia, Niels Nagelhus; Carvalho, Benjamin de (2009): "Nobody Gets Justice Here!" Addresing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and the Rule of Law in Liberia. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Oslo (NUPI Working Paper 761). http://hdl.handle.net/11250/276644

[iv] Government of Liberia (2010): Enhancing Access to Justice: A Review of the Traditional and Formal Justice Systems in Liberia. National Conference, April 15-17 2010, Gbarnga.