Protecting Civilians In The Context Of UN Peacekeeping .

2y ago
7 Views
2 Downloads
5.44 MB
323 Pages
Last View : 18d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman
Transcription

Protecting civilians in the contextof UN peacekeeping operationsSuccesses, setbacks and remaining challenges

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengesCONTENTSForewordAbout the AuthorsAcknowledgmentList of AcronymsExecutive Summaryi - iii1 - 121Introduction13 - 242The UN Security Council and Protection of Civilians Mandate Language25 - 723Security Council Mandates, Individual Peacekeeping Mission Planning, andSecretariat Policies73 - 1234The Field: Peacekeeping, Protection of Civilians, and Humanitarian Actors124 - 1685Findings and Recommendations169 - 192Case StudiesUnited Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS)193 - 210African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID)211 - 241United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)242 - 260United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of theCongo (MONUC)261 - 304Annex Chart305 - 314

About the AuthorsAt the time this study was written, Victoria K. Holt was a Senior Associate at the HenryL. Stimson Center, a think tank where she co-directed the Future of Peace Operationsprogramme. She has since joined the US Department of State. The views expressedherein do not necessarily reflect the views of the US government or the US Departmentof State. Prior to this appointment, Holt’s work included studies on peace operations, theprotection of civilians, sanctions, and African capacities and rule of law. She is the authorof The Impossible Mandate? Military Preparedness, the Responsibility to Protect andModern Peace Operations. Holt led the expert group on military options of the GenocidePrevention Task Force, co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and William Cohen, whichoffered recommendations in December 2008 to the US president to enhance the USability to address threats of genocide and mass atrocities. Before joining Stimson in 2001,she served as Senior Policy Advisor at the State Department (Legislative Affairs)focusing on peacekeeping and UN issues. Prior to that, Holt worked as a seniorCongressional staffer for seven years, focusing on defense and foreign policy issues. Shealso served in various non-governmental organizations, including the EmergencyCoalition for US Financial Support of the United Nations, a bipartisan coalition ofleading statesmen and non- governmental organizations.Glyn Taylor is a partner at Humanitarian Outcomes, a team of specialist consultantsproviding research and policy advice for donor governments and humanitarianorganizations. His recent work includes studies for the Norwegian and Dutchgovernments on humanitarian financing and a review of the UK Government ’shumanitarian programme in Afghanistan. Before joining Humanitarian Outcomes, heworked as a deputy director and head of the advisory group for the Conflict,Humanitarian and Security Operations Team within the UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID). He acted as the DFID humanitarian adviser for Darfur through2005 and 2006, after leading the set-up of the OCHA office in Northern Darfur in 2004on a UK government secondment. Previously, Taylor worked extensively through the UKgovernment’s emergency roster, including: surge support for OCHA in Afghanistan in2001, the set- up of the DFID office in Afghanistan in late 2001, and a management rolein Sierra Leone’s DDR programme. Prior to this, he worked in a management capacitywith large NGO programmes in Sierra Leone and Afghanistan.About the primary research assistantMax Kelly is a research consultant with the Future of Peace Operations programme at theHenry L. Stimson Center. Since joining the programme in 2008, he has worked primarilyon the prevention of mass atrocities and the protection of civilians in multilateral peaceoperations. Prior to joining the Stimson Center, Kelly served as Managing Director of theCambodian Genocide Group’s R2P Initiative and Policy Director of STAND Canadathrough 2005 and 2006. He studied at the University of Toronto’s Peace and ConflictStudies programme, where he was selected as a 2006 Beattie Scholar. He has conductedfield research in Sudan, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Author’s AcknowledgmentsThis study benefited from the immense support and insights of many individuals. Interviews wereconducted on a not-for-attribution basis, so we thank all those who gave so generously of their time,both from those within the United Nations and from those who are its keen observers. We aregrateful to those w ho facilitated and supported our research in the DRC, Sudan and Cote d’Ivoire, aswell as in New York and Geneva. We also thank the many who have served in peacekeepingoperations and recorded their insights and observations, from which we benefited tremendously.We would like to recognize the contribution of the study's management team, comprised ofmembers of OCHA’s Policy Development and Studies Branch (PDSB) and DPKO's PeacekeepingBest Practices Section (PBPS), who conceived of and launched this project. Their enthusiasm for thissubject was matched by the recognition of the deep challenges involved. In particular, we thankAllegra Baiocchi of OCHA and Kyoko Ono of DPKO, who provided direct support and assistanceto us throughout this enterprise. They also marshaled the interest of governments and opened doorswithin the UN system, for which we are truly grateful.We also offer special recognition to our Team Leader, Ambassador Augustine Mahiga of the UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, who opened doors and gave wise counsel. We are deeply appreciative of ourexpert advisory group, who gave us guidance and consideration throughout the process: Prince ZeidRa'ad Zeid Al-Hussein, Patrick Cammaert, Jakkie Cilliers, Abdoulaye Fall, Elissa Goldberg, FabrizioHochschild, Mark Kroeker, Thomas Koenigs, Jasbir Lidder and Gemmo Lodesani. We thank themfor giving us the benefit of their immense experience and expertise.Thanks go to Izumi Nakamitsu (DPKO) and Hansjoerg Strohmeyer (OCHA), who chaired theAdvisory Group meetings and offered their insights.We would also like to recognize the enduring support of our organizations and partners, the HenryL. Stimson Center and Humanitarian Outcomes, who truly made this study possible. We would liketo acknowledge the institutional contribution given by Stimson, and our colleagues in the Future ofPeace Operations program, for this work at all stages. At Stimson, Research Assistant GuyHammond worked tirelessly, providing research and unflagging support to move this study topublication. Research Fellow Alison Giffen offered superior management skills and first-handknowledge of the challenges in the field which enhanced this written work. Vice President CherylRamp marshaled considerable resources and invaluable backing to this project at every step of theway. We could not have completed this study without them.We would like to thank our families, who gave us backing and understanding in this endeavor.Finally, we thank those who serve in the field as peacekeepers of all kinds, who carry both ourambitions for the protection of civilians and the burden of knowing how far we still have to go.

List of SHRDLSIAHCCIASCICCIDPAfrican Union Mission in SudanArea of operationsArmoured personnel carrierAfrican UnionCordon-and-search operationCongrès National pour la Défense du Peuple (National Congress forPeople’s Defense)Concept of operationsComprehensive Peace AgreementDisarmament, demobilization, and reintegrationDisarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement, andreintegrationDarfur Peace AgreementDepartment of Political AffairsDepartment of Peacekeeping OperationsDemocratic Republic of the CongoDeputy Special Representative of the Secretary-GeneralDeputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General/ResidentCoordinator/Humanitarian CoordinatorDeputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General–Rule of LawDirective on the Use of ForceEconomic Community of West African States Mission in Côted’IvoireEconomic Community of West African States Monitoring GroupEconomic Community of West African StatesEastern Division HeadquartersForces Armées Nationales de Côte d'Ivoire (National Armed Forcesof Côte d’Ivoire)Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du CongoForces Démocratique de Libération du RwandaForce Generation ServiceForces Nouvelles de Côte d’IvoireFront des Nationalistes et IntégrationnistesFramework PlanFront Populaire IvoirienFormed Police UnitForces de Résistance Patriotique d'Ituri (Patriotic Resistance Front inIturi)Government of SudanGovernment of Southern SudanHumanitarian Recovery, Development and Liaison SectionInter-Agency Humanitarian Coordination CommitteeInter-Agency Standing CommitteeInternational Criminal CourtInternally displaced personi

ASPLASPLMSRSGSSDFTAMTCCTTTInterim Emergency Multinational ForceIntergovernmental Authority on DevelopmentInternational humanitarian lawIntegrated Mission Planning ProcessIntegrated Mission Planning TeamIntegrated Mission Task ForceIntegrated Strategic FrameworkIntegrated Task ForceJoint Assessment MissionJustice and Equality MovementJoint Operations CentreJoint Protection TeamLord’s Resistance ArmyUnited Nations military observerUnited Nations Mission in Côte d’IvoireUnited Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and ChadUnited Nations Stabilization Mission in HaitiMouvement pour la Justice et la PaixMouvement pour la Libération du CongoMobile operating baseUnited Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic ofthe CongoMemorandum of understandingMouvement Patriotique de Côte d’IvoireMouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand OuestMilitary Planning ServiceMonitoring and reporting mechanismNon-combatant evacuation operationOffice for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsOperations PlanPolice-contributing countriesProtection of civiliansQuick Reaction ForceQuick Review MissionRassemblement Congolais pour la DémocratieRwandan Defence ForcesRules of engagementSudanese Armed ForcesSexual and gender-based violenceSudanese Liberation ArmySudanese People’s Liberation ArmySudanese People’s Liberation MovementSpecial Representative of the Secretary-GeneralSouth Sudan Defence ForcesTechnical Assessment MissionTroop-contributing countryTroops to Taskii

OLUNPROFORUPCURUBATTUSGZOCAfrican Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in DarfurUnited Nations Advance Mission to SudanUnited Nations Mission in Sierra LeoneUnited Nations Country TeamUnited Nations Department of Safety and SecurityOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUnited Nations Mission in SudanUnited Nations military observerUnited Nations Operation in Côte d'IvoireUnited Nations PoliceUnited Nations Protection ForceUnion des Patriotes CongolaisUruguayan battalionUnder-Secretary-GeneralZone of Confidenceiii

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengesEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe plight of civilians is no longer something which can be neglected, or made secondary because itcomplicates political negotiations or interests. It is fundamental to the central mandate of theOrganization. The responsibility for the protection of civilians cannot be transferred to others. TheUnited Nations is the only international organization with the reach and authority to end thesepractices. 1—Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 1999This study examines the creation, interpretation, and implementation of mandates for United Nationspeacekeeping missions to protect civilians. Commissioned jointly by the UN Office for the Coordination ofHumanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) as anindependent study, its overarching objective is to produce analysis and recommendations to enhance theability of UN peacekeeping missions to protect civilians.The study examines the steps taken to transform the Security Council mandates to protect civilians intoeffective efforts on the ground – following the ‘chain’ of actions that support that process. As such, the studylooks at the elaboration of mandates in the Security Council; explores the planning and preparations formissions, primarily within the UN Secretariat; and then considers UN peacekeeping missions themselves,including their interactions with host states and humanitarian actors. Four current peacekeeping missions areexamined in greater depth to illustrate the challenges confronting them: MONUC, in the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo (DRC); UNOCI, in Côte d’Ivoire; and UNMIS and UNAMID in Sudan. At each linkin the ‘chain,’ the report attempts to identify impediments to transforming ambitions to protect civilians intorealities on the ground, and to provide recommendations for how to overcome them.The security of civilians in post-conflict environments is critical to the legitimacy and credibility of UNpeacekeeping missions, the peace agreements they are deployed to help implement, and the institution of theUnited Nations itself. Likewise, the role of peacekeeping missions in protection of civilians requires thepolitical support of the Security Council and the main parties to the conflict. This lesson is not new, butneeds emphasis, especially given the challenges facing modern peacekeeping missions.Protecting Civilians to Protect the PeaceOver the last two decades, the world has witnessed armed conflicts marked by systematic violenceand mass atrocities against civilians, and has increasingly looked to the United Nations, and in particular toUN peacekeeping operations, to prevent and or to halt such crimes. The failures of missions to providesecurity in complex crises such as Somalia, and to protect civilians from mass atrocities in Rwanda andBosnia, tested the fundamental principles and capabilities of UN peacekeeping operations and demonstratedthat reform was urgently required.Since then, notable efforts have worked to improve the overall effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations,including their capabilities to protect civilians. For a decade, the UN Security Council has also expressed itsresolve to support more effective missions, and to put a greater spotlight on the protection of civilians, as1S/1999/957 of 8 September 1999, para. 68.1

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengesseen by its series of statements and resolutions, and the request that the Secretary-General issue regularreports on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. 2More tangibly, UN peacekeeping mandates have changed, as the Council has shifted peacekeeping wellbeyond its traditional role of monitoring the implementation of peace agreements over the last decade.Modern peacekeeping missions are multidimensional, addressing the full spectrum of peacebuilding activities,from providing secure environments to monitoring human rights and rebuilding the capacity of the state.Increasingly, such mandates also instruct peacekeeping missions to put an emphasis on the physicalprotection of civilians.As part of this evolution, ten UN peacekeeping operations have been explicitly mandated to “protect civiliansunder imminent threat of physical violence.” 3 The first mission provided with this explicit mandate language,the UN peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, was authorized in 1999 inter alia “to affordprotection to civilians under imminent threat of physical violence.” 4 By 2009, the majority of the nearly100,000 uniformed UN peacekeepers deployed worldwide operate with such mandates.The link between the protection of civilians and peacekeeping mandates is central. First, the safety andsecurity of civilians is critical to the legitimacy and credibility of peacekeeping missions. Missions rely upontheir legitimacy with the local civilian population and external observers alike to help build peace andmaintain political momentum behind the peace process. Moreover, wherever peacekeepers deploy, they raiseexpectations among the local population—and among those who view missions from afar—that the reasonfor their presence is to support people at risk. As seen in Rwanda, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Haiti, DRC andDarfur, among others, peacekeeping operations that are ill-prepared to address large-scale violence directedagainst civilians will falter and may even collapse. While missions work to manage high expectations, they alsoneed to address the security of civilians to build and maintain the legitimacy and credibility needed to carryout their other mandated tasks to assist with the political and local reconsolidation efforts and peacebuilding.Of course, UN peacekeeping missions do not and cannot ‘own’ the concept of protection. They bringinternational civilian, military and police skills and assets to operational arenas in which other protectionactors are present, including the host state, mandated UN protection agencies, non-governmentalorganizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is essential that the actions are coherentand mutually reinforcing where possible.Second, the protection of civilians is a critical component for a sustainable political peace. A peace agreementthat does not bring a halt to armed violence, widespread human rights abuses and violations of internationalhumanitarian law—or that tolerates continued violence against sectors of the population—cannot lead tolegitimate governance. Where civilians remain at risk, efforts to establish governance, security, and the rule ofUNSC resolutions on the protection of civilians include S/RES/1267 of October 15 1999, S/RES/1296 of 19 April2000, S/RES/1674 of 28 April 2006, and S/RES/1738 of 23 December 2006. The President of the Security Council hasissued statements on the protection of civilians on 12 February 1999 (S/PRST/1999/6); 15 March 2002(S/PRST/2002/6); 20 December 2002 (S/PRST/2002/41); 15 December 2003 (S/PRST/2003/27); 14 December 2004(S/PRST/2004/46); 21 June 2005 (S/PRST/2005/25) and 14 January 2009 (S/PRST/2009/1). The Secretary-Generalhas submitted periodic reports on the protection of civilians, on 8 September 1999 (S/1999/957); 31 March 2001(S/2001/331); 26 November 2002 (S/2002/1300); 28 May 2004 (S/2004/431); 28 November 2005 (S/2005/740), 28October 2007 (S/2007/643) and 29 May 2009 (S/2009/277).3 UN-led missions include UNAMSIL; MONUC; UNMIL; ONUB; MINUSTAH; UNOCI; UNMIS; UNIFIL;UNAMID; and MINURCAT. The Council also used similar language for missions led by others.4S/RES/1270 of 22 October 1999, para. 14.22

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengeslaw may flounder and be unsustainable. Neither a legitimate state nor efforts for a stable peace can befounded on a political settlement or government that leaves a population at risk of systematic or extremeviolence.Finally, the protection of civilians by peacekeeping missions is also central to the legitimacy and credibility ofthe entire United Nations system. These operations are among the most high-profile manifestations of UNaction and their conduct has implications for the organization as a whole. Certainly the inability ofpeacekeeping missions to address violence against civilians in the past has damaged the standing of theUnited Nations and threatened to discredit the practice of peacekeeping in general. 5 Indeed, the challenge ofprotecting civilians cuts to the core of the UN purpose – ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge ofwar.’ In an era of complex conflicts in which civilians continue to be targeted, the organization can neitheravoid its duty to protect civilians, nor afford to be discredited by failing to live up to its own ambitions.Taking Stock Ten Years LaterTen years after the Sierra Leone mission mandate and the first Secretary-General’s report to theSecurity Council on the protection of civilians, OCHA and DPKO recognized the need to look more closelyat the protection of civilians by UN peacekeeping missions. The importance is clear – today eight UNpeacekeeping missions are explicitly mandated to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence,as well as to uphold other protection measures, ranging from ensuring security for vulnerable groups tosupporting IDP returns. Yet the UN Secretariat, troop- and police-contributing countries, host states,humanitarian actors, human rights professionals, and the missions themselves continue to struggle over whatit means for a peacekeeping operation to protect civilians, in definition and in practice.Both as a broad concept, and in the specific context of peacekeeping, the ‘protection of civilians’ is open tonumerous interpretations. This study confirms that there is no unified interpretation of the concept forprotection of civilians in peacekeeping operations. Further, the variety of views and understandings had directimplications for this report. The team began by examining a broad range of language from peacekeepingmandates touching on aspects of the protection of civilians. As the study progressed, discussions with thoseon the Security Council, in the Secretariat, and in the field revealed that the most common association of theconcept in the context of peacekeeping centred on the ‘protection of civilians from imminent threat ofphysical violence.’ Thus, while other critical components of peacekeeping missions contribute to theprotection of civilians, the focus here is on the need to understand and support peacekeeping mission’soverall aim to protect civilians and to support better understanding of what that means in the context ofphysical threats.The study authors benefited from the leadership of Ambassador Augustine Mahiga of the United Republic ofTanzania and the guidance of an expert advisory group. Interviews and an extensive review of available UNand other relevant documents were used to examine the chain of events outlined above, with a focus on fourpeacekeeping missions which the team visited: MONUC, UNOCI, UNMIS, and UNAMID.‘No failure did more to damage the standing and credibility of United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990s than itsfailure to distinguish between victim and aggressor.’ Brahimi Report , A/55/305–S/2000/809 of 21 August 2000, p. ix.53

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengesThe Challenge of Protecting CiviliansThe study aimed to identify and follow the chain of actions that lead to Security Council mandates, throughto UN mission planning and deployment following Council action, to the activities of the peacekeepingoperation being established and managed in the field. Over the course of a year, the authors identified criticalelements linking Security Council mandates and peacekeeping missions in the field, and found dramatic gapsthat undermine the ability of peacekeeping missions to protect civilians. Recognition of, and improvementsin, this chain of actions should lead first, to a better understanding of the challenges by all protection actors;second, to the provision of the requisite political support and resources by the Member States; and third, toimprovements in the implementation in peacekeeping missions across the board.Key FindingsThis study found that the presumed ‘chain’ of events to support protection of civilians—from the earliestplanning, to Security Council mandates to the implementation of mandates by peacekeeping missions in thefield—is broken. Key areas which need to be addressed are identified.The planning that informs Security Council deliberations and peacekeeping mandates does notconsistently take into consideration the nature of the threats to civilians. Under the UN Charter, theSecurity Council has primary responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security, including theestablishment of UN peacekeeping operations. Informed by weeks and often months of planning within theSecretariat prior to Council negotiations and adoption of resolutions mandating a peacekeeping operation, thelanguage adopted by the Council in resolutions defines the mission objectives, gives the basis for designingand deploying the mission, and guides the work of its leaders and personnel in the field. However, this studyfound little evidence that pre-mandate planning and assessments consistently address threats to civilians – thismeans that these threats are less likely to inform mission mandates, strategies, structures or resources.The Secretariat and peacekeeping missions do not have a clear understanding of the Council’s intentregarding ‘protection of civilians’ mandates. In this regard, one source of confusion has been the multiplemeanings the Council has attached to the term ‘protection of civilians’ in peacekeeping mandates, and itsrelationship to various concepts of protection. The Council has used this terminology to refer to the broadnormative framework that prohibits violence against civilians in some instances; the full range ofhumanitarian and peacebuilding activities in which the UN system engages in others; and the narrowerconcept of ‘physical’ protection supported by the peacekeeping mission overall, but with a presumptive focuson actions by its military and police assets. The Council has also employed the language of ‘protection ofcivilians’ in mandates to describe mission objectives, as well as to identify specific tasks. These variations haveresulted in both very narrow and very broad interpretations of the term by planners, implementers and otherkey stakeholders, without a consensus around which to structure their efforts. One meaning consistentlyoffered by Council members was that which was used in the Sierra Leone mandate in 1999: that in itssimplest form, the Council intends the instruction to ‘protect civilians’ to ensure that peacekeepers helpprevent and halt acts of extreme violence. Integral to this meaning is the ‘objective limit’ discussed at thetime, which today still provides a useful framework of protection within realistic bounds of geography,function and capacity. In short, that means the mission should work to prevent the escalation of violence4

Protecting civilians in the context of UN peacekeeping operations:Successes, setbacks and remaining challengesagainst the population, alongside the mission’s more routine efforts to offer security to those in the missionarea.6The Security Council has also contributed to ambiguity. Despite enduring consistency in mandate languageregarding the physical protection of civilians, there is no consistent perception of Council intent amongstsenior UN mission staff, either within the UN Secretariat or UN peacekeeping missions. The Council has notsquarely asked the Secretary-General and the Secretariat to answer how they are addressing whatpeacekeeping missions actually do in relation to the physical protection of civilians; how they measureprogress; or how the missions interact with other actors, including the host state and/or parties to theconflict.Confusion over the Council’s intent is evident in the lack of policy guidance, planning andpreparedness. This creates and exacerbates critical gaps in policy development, planning and preparednessthat are the responsibility primarily of the Secretariat. UN guidance regarding interpretation of thesemandates for peacekeeping missions does not exist. The 2008 Capstone Doctrine incorporates the protectionof civilians as a cross-cutting issue, but offers no operational definition around which planning for specificmissions can take place. In the absence of guidance codifying what ‘protection of civilians’ means inoperational terms, the planning process for individual missions is generally silent about what kinds of‘protection’ are offered to whom, from what, and within what limits. Thus, the result of the current confusionabout Council intent and the gap in guidance is that UN mandates to protect civilians are not effectivelytranslated into operational strategies through the planning process for UN peacekeeping missions.The impact of the lack of clarity on the planning process has knock-on effects for mission resources as well.Because the operational requirements for missions to implement protection of civilians mandates have notbeen described, the parts of the planning process that focus on securing resources do not account for theadditional resource demands associated with protection of civilians mandates, thereby compounding thechallenges for missions once they reach the field.The study identifies ‘pivot points’ within the planning process that should (but do not yet adequately)consider insecurity of civilians in the preparations for peacekeeping missions. Crafting a coherent approachrequires advance planning to ensure that future and current missions have the authority and capacity toprotect, a strategy that support its aims and accounts for the realities in the field, a knowledge of how toprotect civilians, and the willingness to use those tools to good effect.These gaps also manifest themselves in the extremely limited training that senior mission leaders anduniformed personnel receive on the protection of civilians prior to deployment. This leaves senior missionleaders and contingent commanders to make decisions about mission strategy and tactics in the absence ofclear guidance from the Council, the Secretariat, Member States or the General Assembly’s SpecialCommittee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34). Even the ability of talented senior leaders to craft coherentapproaches is compromised

IMTF Integrated Mission Task Force ISF Integrated Strategic Framework ITF Integrated Task Force JAM Joint Assessment Mission JEM Justice and Equality Movement JOC Joint Operations Centre JPT Joint Protection Team LRA Lord’s Resistance Army MILOB United Nations military ob

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

Protecting Civilians in the Context of UN Peacekeeping Operations tions in order to undertake the systemic improvements required to pro-vide more effective protection to civilians, by filling the gaps in policy and preparedness described in the report. Protecting civilians must be a

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

8 From Principle to Practice: Protecting Civilians in Violent Contexts From Principle to Practice: Protecting Civilians in Violent Contexts 9 Armed Conflict Armed combat involves the armed forces of at least one state (or one or more armed factions seeking to gain control of all or part of the state), and in which at least 1,000 people have been