English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The legal immunity of the UN has focused the peacekeeping literature on individual accountability and the political willingness of States to prosecute their own. UN immunity applies to peacekeeping operations only when the UN is in effective control. When a State is exerting effective control over its contingent, either solely or jointly, the actions of peacekeepers will be attributed to that State. When States are in effective control, they cannot rely on UN immunity for breaches of their obligations. Once a State is exercising effective control, it must warrant that sufficient mechanisms are undertaken to fulfil its obligations under the law, specifically the extra-territorial nature of international human rights law. The  Mothers of Srebrenica  case highlights that peacekeeping accountability is not limited to the prosecution of individual peacekeepers. Although UN immunity limits specific avenues of legal recourse, it does not prevent victims from seeking accountability from Troop Contributing Countries.

State Responsibility and Accountability in UN Peacekeeping: The Case of The Mothers of Srebrenica v. The Netherlands