Australia and Peacekeeping
Australia can lay claim to the proud record of having had peacekeepers in the field every single day since 14 September 1947. Yet while Australian political support for peacekeeping has generally been unwavering, there have been marked shifts in Australian governments
( iciss ) introducing the concept Responsibility to Protect (R2P); the Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction (2001); the un Working Group on Human Rights of Leprosy-Affected People.
Peacekeeping has been one of the most acclaimed innovations during the 70 year history of the
civilians in armed conflict, civilian protection by peacekeepers has become increasingly mainstreamed both in policy documents and in African peacekeeping operations’ mandates. 1 Starting in 1999 with the creation of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) – the mandate of which refers for the first time
Political Science, Vanderbilt University in 2012. He is interested on matters relating to strategic studies and Bangladesh’s foreign relations and has published on issues pertaining to terrorism, strategic theory, peacekeeping missions and Bangladesh armed forces.
** Niloy Ranjan Biswas also teaches
otherwise and all errors remain mine alone.
Japan’s contribution to international peacekeeping has mixed records: despite its position as the second largest financial contributor to un peacekeeping budget, the deployment of its Self-Defence Forces ( sdf ) for peacekeeping purposes
most expensive UN mission in the world 5 –has brought to question the ability of UN peacekeeping to effectively follow through on its most basic task: to protect civilians, especially victims of sexual violence.
The DRC has disturbingly been described as the ‘rape capital of the world’ 6 where the
emphasis on civilian protection in un peace operations should thus also encompass the protection from sexual violence. Nevertheless, we have very limited knowledge as to whether sexual violence in fact infl