Legal
Background Guide
Dalton Model United Nations IV
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016
Table of Contents
Letter from the Chair•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••3
Committee Brief•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••4
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorist Operations••••••••••••••••5
Topic B: Corruption in UN Peacekeeping Forces•••••••••••••••••••••••12
Endnotes••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••16
2
Letter from the Chair
Dearest Delegates,
Welcome to Dalton’s 4th annual Model United Nations Conference, DMUN
IV! Since 2012, the Dalton MUN team has worked tirelessly to provide an excellent
conference, and in the past three years, we have expanded greatly. This year, it is
my pleasure to welcome you to the first Legal Committee in DMUN’s history! I will
serve as the chair of this committee alongside my moderators Sonia Epelbaum and
Ryan Green.
I am currently a junior at the Dalton School and have participated in Model United Nations for the past three years on our high school team and actually
had my first MUN experience at DMUN I! Aside from MUN, I enjoy Dalton’s very
own glorified scrapbooking club: yearbook! I also enjoy making things look pretty
for our school newspaper, The Daltonian, and work as design director, laying out
articles and creating graphics. When I’m not studying for standardized tests or
snapping pics for Instagram, you can find me letting loose in the downtown area,
exploring my concealed passion for karaoke.
Our moderators, Ryan Green and Sonia Epelbaum, are both sophomores at
the Dalton School. In addition to his love for his height, Ryan also enjoys Model UN! Known by his teammates as “Barracuda,” a nickname given to model his
determination with female delegates, towers over most in both dedication and
stature. Do not be feared by his height, Ryan is more than happy to help with any
questions and can be contacted by email. When Sonia isn’t busting a move on the
dance floor she can be seen fawning over a certain chair that may or may not be
yours truly.
I am incredibly excited for DMUN IV and can’t wait for the impassioned debate that I am sure will follow! It is my first time chairing a committee and I truly
hope that everyone becomes as interested about our topics as I am. Feel free to ask
me, Sonia, or Ryan any questions you may have about the topics or the conference
itself. I am looking forward to meeting everyone and I hope you are as excited as I
am!
Best,
Aly Milich
[email protected]
3
Committee Brief
The Legal Committee is considered the sixth committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations and addresses problems in the international community through its defining, revising, and refining of international law. As one
of the main General Assembly committees in the UN, all 193 UN recognized nations are entitled to representation within this body. The Legal Committee has
the capacity to alter treaties, redefine boarders, and build the framework by which
international crime will be judged. The Committee often revisits the Geneva Convention as a basis for solutions proposed. Being well-acquainted with the way the
6th Committee has addressed international crises in the past will help you stay
within Legal’s capacity in your suggestions. Legal has jurisdiction over courts and
international law, but cannot actually create new branches or subcommittees. I
strongly encourage you not to limit yourself to just redefining terms or creating
legislation, but keep in mind that if you propose the creation of something, you
have to delegate the task to another UN body, such as DISEC, SPECPOL, SOCHUM,
etc.
Procedurally, Legal will function nearly identically to any other General Assembly. We will follow the standard parliamentary procedure used at all Model
United Nations conferences and encourage any delegates with questions about
the way the committee is being run to come forward at any time. During the course
of our committee session, delegates may also be faced with various crisis updates
that should stimulate debate, reaffirm the urgency of the matter, and factor into
the solutions put forth. You will not be asked to write any directives or any other
work other than the standard resolution produced in Model UN. No clauses should
be written beforehand, however I strongly encourage that you carefully consider
the information given in this guide, including the case studies, and combine it
with outside research to develop innovative solutions that you will collaborate in
committee to turn into a working paper.
Our two topics are Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorist Operations and
Corruption in UN Peacekeeping Forces. These are both incredibly pressing topics
and strongly impact the way each nation and the international community functions. As the Legal Committee, we will be exploring ways by which we can use
legislation to combat these problems along with providing effective solutions to
other United Nations bodies. In addition to thoughtfully reading the background
guide, I encourage you to do thorough outside research to truly understand the
capacity of Legal and your nation’s policy.
4
Topic A: Targeted Killings in
Counter Terrorist Operations
Overview of the Topic
committee “targeted killing” is the word
that will be used when referring to the
topic. Assassination has been defined
by Black’s Law Dictionary as “the act of
deliberately killing someone especially
a public figure, usually for hire or political reasons.” Assassination has been
illegal in international legal terms since
1899, when it was prohibited by Article
23b of the Hague Convention of 1899,
and then later on by the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949.
Extrajudicial is defined as any act “done
in contravention of due process of law”.
Therefore, terms such as assassination,
extrajudicial killing, and extrajudicial
punishment, when applied to killing in
counter terrorist operations, already
suggests that these killings are illegal.
However, the purpose of committee
will be to try and answer the question
of whether or not targeted killings are
justified under international rule of law,
and what the implications for the future
of international law are based on the international community’s lack of opposition to sources of targeted killings. For
example, US continuous drone strikes
are used to target terrorist suspects, but
result in a plethora of casualties and can
result in the direct assault of a certain
group of people (2). One of your jobs as
a delegate on the legal committee is to
consider redefining these terms to punish these acts of violence.
Ironically, in an effort to bring
justice, targeted killings often fall outside of the scope of due process of the
law. The topic of targeting killings includes those which take place as part
of the conduct of hostilities in a time
of war and that are aimed any person
not entitled to protection against direct
attack. This topic also includes killing
a civilian not directly participating in
hostilities, whether within or outside
the context of war. Nils Melzer, legal
advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross, states these two as
paradigms. He refers to the first as the
hostilities paradigm, stating that targets must be “likely to contribute effectively to the achievement of a concrete
and direct military advantage without
there being an equivalent non-lethal
alternative.” This refers to what is more
commonly known as “kill or capture”.
The second type, the law enforcement
paradigm, Melzer believes, must be a
preventative act rather than a punitive
act; protection of the people from future attack can be its only purpose (1).
There are many terms that may
appear synonymous to “targeted killing”, such as assassination, extrajudicial
killing, and extrajudicial punishment.
However, for the purpose of discussion in
5
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
Targeted Killing under the
Law of Interstate Force
When discussing this topic there
are four main problems that arise. The
first is that which falls under the under the purview of the Law of Interstate
Force. This addresses the issue of national sovereignty. There is a gener-
the killing is taking place, or when authorized by the UN Security Council.
It would seem then that an analysis of
the concept of extra territorial targeted
killings carried out solely under the law
of interstate force in the context of the
right to self defense granted under Article 51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter
is applicable; however, this interpre-
al consensus that the use of targeted
killings by a state in another state falls
under the prohibition of the Interstate
Acts of Force, as laid out in Article 2(4)
of the UN Charter. These killings can
only be legally accounted for when they
are committed as an act of self-defense
when authorized by the state in which
tation ignores the fact that this law is
pertinent only to the regulation of relations between states and not between
states and individuals. This means that
the laws which should be adhered to are
the human rights law in peacetime and
the international humanitarian laws in
times, because these laws protect the
6
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
individual from harm at the hands of
state actors. Under Article 51 of the UN
Charter targeted killing is a response to
an armed attack; however, it is widely used to justify the idea of necessity
as derived from domestic criminal law.
This makes a targeted killing warranted
if the harm which would be averted by
conducting the targeted killing is greater than the harm of carrying it out in the
first place. This proposal to replace the
prerequisite of an “armed attack” with a
proportionality assessment, ignores the
fact that customary law already recognizes an exculpatory concept of necessity which could be used to achieve the
same results. This means that the question is not whether or not the law of interstate force needs to be amended with
elements of domestic law, but rather,
to what extent does Article 2(4) of the
UN Charter permit exceptions based on
consent, necessity, and distress? What
is clear is that the law of interstate force
requires revision especially in its adoption of cases of state self defense against
non-state actors (3).
person? Is capture the ultimate intention, or not? Under this section of international law it is of chief importance
to identify whether or not a situation
of armed conflict exists. IHL states that
targeted killing is justifiable if the individual being targeted is a legitimate
military target, such as a combatant or
a civilian who is directly participating in
hostilities. It then becomes important
to ask: what acts qualify as hostile acts
and leave an individual open to being
attacked? Regarding the first point, the
US Supreme Court, in the Hamdan case
of 2006, affirmed the notion that the
war on terror was a non-international
armed conflict. This makes little to no
sense given the fact that a non-international armed conflict cannot, by definition, assume a global dimension as the
US has claimed the war on terror has.
It is absurd and dangerous to declare a
global war, meaning the whole world is
a war zone, because of its legal ramifications. Addressing the second point, it
has been recommended that terrorists
occupy an entirely new categorization
Targeted Killing under
International Humanitarian Law
The second problem is with regards to the level of conviction of the
targets guilt or their potential for future
harm when conducting the targeted
killing. The International Humanitarian
Law (IHL) deals with the issue of due
process of the law. Is it legal to kill this
7
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
Targeted Killing and its place in
Customary International Law (CIL)
in the eyes of the law; that of international criminals. This means that they
would gain none of the rights of lawful combatants, under international
law, nor the rights of other criminals,
under domestic law. You by no means
should feel an obligation to create this
legislation in committee, it is merely
an interesting proposal, what should
be addressed in committee is a way of
providing clarity to this vague language
present in IHL (4).
Lastly, the implications of the apparent acceptance of the international
community, through failing to condemn
blatant practice of targeted killing as
employed in the war on terror, on the
future of customary international law.
Currently, CIL permits limited right to
pre-emptive self defense, which is dependent on the interpretation of Article
51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter and
Targeted Killing under Human
the body of law formulated by the CarRights Law
oline Case of 1837, stating that necessity for pre-emptive self-defense must
The third area of contention are be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving
the civilian casualties that inevitably no choice of means, and no moment for
arise from counter terrorism opera- deliberation”. CIL develops without a
tions. These deaths fall under Human
Rights Law, which consists of the UN
Human Rights Council and its Special
Rapporteurs, and also in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the UN
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
Officials (1979) and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials (1990) (5, 6).
These conventions state that the use of
lethal force under human rights law is
governed by the rule of absolute necessity, which means that the use of force centralized law-making body or enforchas to be the sole option available to er, growing from the accepted practices
avoid a threat, and the principle of pro- of states and frequently demonstrates
portionality, which requires the level of the needs and desire of the most influforce used to be explained in terms of ential nations. CIL is not at all stagnant,
the magnitude of the threat presented. rather it is shaped by new assertions
of legal rights, especially when other
8
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
states, albeit reluctantly, accept those
assertions. Hence, the reactions of the
international community to the policy
of targeted killing by the US in the war
on terror, for example, might affect the
future legality of that policy in international law (7).
is that the alternative, capture, would
have been a long, complicated path. A
fair trial would have been exceedingly difficult for bin Laden, and it would
have been impossible to attain international agreement as to where the trial
should take place. The US public, and
media all around the world, would only
be satisfied with a verdict of guilt.
Case Studies
Many more questions emerge
from this situation. The killing of bin
Laden brings up the question of Pakistan’s sovereignty for the US did not
inform Islamabad of the operation to
ensure the secrecy of the operation was
maintained. On the other hand, there is
the question of the effectiveness of killing terrorist leaders in squashing terrorist groups as a whole. If the effectiveness
is minimal are these killings, such as the
death of bin Laden, anything more than
acts of revenge by a state upon an individual? The justification for the killing
could not have been warfare, for it was
not announced until mid 2012 by the US
Defense Secretary that a US military act
within a Pakistani city was to be considered an act of war. It was widely recognized that bin Laden was only a figurehead for the al-Qaeda network with
no input on the planning of operations.
Both President Bush, in 2002, and President Obama in 2009, declared that there
was no longer a need to find bin Laden. It
is clear that at the time of the attack any
genuine threat posed by bin Laden had
ended, and the test of immediacy in order to justify the attack fails in this case.
Osama bin Laden, Pakistan,
May 2011
Operation Neptune Spear, the
SEAL Team 6 raid on Osama bin Laden’s
compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan,
was supposedly a “kill or capture” mission. The US military has a stated policy
that unarmed suspects cannot be killed
during an operation, yet several reports
of the operation state that bin Laden
was unarmed at the time of his death
and presented no threat to the special-forces operators confronting him.
This means that the intention all along
must have been to kill. The problem
9
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
Aslam Awan, Pakistan, January 2012
On January 10, 2012, Aslam Awan,
a Pakistani national from Abbottabad,
was killed by a US drone strike in the
town of Miramshah in the Pakistan border province of North Waziristan. Killing Awan and 4 other people, the drone
strike ended an unofficial eight week hiatus in US drone strikes in Pakistan fol-
lowing the NATO air attack of November
2011 which killed 24 Pakistani troops
and embittered relations between the
Pakistani government and NATO forces. On January 4th, a planned CIA drone
strike in the same region had been cancelled after the CIA had informed the
Pakistani government of the plan and
they had refused to give permission for
the strike. The attack elicited several
public protests, though reports from
the US administration said that top administration officials had met with their
Islamabad counterparts and told them
that the hiatus on drone strikes would
be ending. The reports also emphasized
that no promise had been made that the
drone campaign in Pakistan would be
stopped.
10
Topic A: Targeted Killings in Counter Terrorism Operations
A US official described Awan as
an important figure in the remaining
core of the al-Qaeda leadership: “Aslam
Anwar was a senior al-Qaeda external
operations planner who was working on
attacks against the West. His death reduces al-Qaeda’s thinning bench of another operative devoted to plotting the
death of innocent civilians.” US officials
describe the attacks that Awan was supposedly engaged in planning as “attacks
against the west”. This was the only information released regarding the justification for the attack, although it is
claimed that the US administration did
provide the Pakistani government with
the specifics of why Awan was targeted
and we are told that officials in Islamabad granted permission for this strike.
Is this hazy explanation for why a certain suspect has been targeted for killing, while the specifics are kept hidden
for matters of national security, enough
to claim the right to conduct targeted killing for reasons of pre-emptive
self-defense. In addition, no evidence
was presented of a clear and present
danger of immediate attack which is
necessary to justify an act of anticipatory self-defense.
how they are currently dealing with it.
As we are a legal committee, in your
research focus on legal solutions and
policy points. Please remember to consider previous legislation that has been
passed either in the United Nations or
in your country. Remember that topics
that involve violence can result in polarized policies so please ensure that
the solutions you propose reflect the
desires of your assigned nation.
Questions to Consider
• How can the international community
guarantee that national sovereignty is
not infringed upon in these operations?
• How do you define a combatant? How
do you define a “civilian who is directly
participating in hostilities”?
• How much evidence is necessary in order to target a suspect?
• How transparent should governments
issuing these attacks have to be?
• Does a new international framework
of legislation have to be developed for
the use of targeted killing or does it alResearch and Questions
ready exist? If not, what will this new
legislation look like and how will it be
When researching it is important enforced?
that you take into account both your
country’s policy and what areas of con- • What responsibility does the internatention surrounding this topic are the tional community have, with regards to
most important to your country and reacting to these targeted killings?
11
Corruption in UN
Peacekeeping Forces
Overview of the Topic
response to an uptick in allegations in
2013, the UN commissioned an addi
As a representative of peace tional report from the UN Office of Inthroughout the world, UN Peacekeep- ternal Oversight Services (OIOS).
ers are a symbol of freedom and tolerance for the stressed residents of wartorn regions. Unfortunately, as human
beings subject to temptation, they are
also at risk of abusing their positions.
Recent events have highlighted the risk
of corrupt and criminal activity by UN
Peacekeepers (10). After allegations
of assault and criminal activity in the
1990s, then UN Secretary General Kofi
OIOS made six recommendations
Annan commissioned a panel led by Lakhdar Brahimi to evaluate the status in its May 2015 report including: revisof UN peacekeeping efforts and gener- ing the 2007 Memorandum of Underate recommendations (11). This report standing (MOU) among troop/peacewas produced in August 2000 and con- keeper contributing countries (TCCs/
tained recommendations to improve PCCs) to enhance its effectiveness; proUN peacekeeping operations (12). Three posing a funded Comprehensive Strateyears later, in 2003, a study of the suc- gy on Assistance and Support to Victims
cess of the Brahimi report was reviewed of Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (SVand while progress had been made, SAE) (15); analyzing differences in dismany recommendations lacked full cipline across uniformed contingents;
implementation (13). In response, the strengthening follow-up protocols with
UN adopted a three pronged approach TCCs and PCCs; reporting on whether
to sexual exploitation and abuse by UN contingent commanders have fulfilled
peacekeepers: prevention of miscon- their command responsibilities in preduct, enforcement of UN standards of venting and addressing SVSAE; and
clarifying certain provisions within the
conduct and remedial action.
2003 Secretary-General’s bulletin relat
Despite a stated zero tolerance ing to SVSAE (16).
policy from the Secretary General, alA further private report by Profeslegations of abuse have continued. In 12
Topic B: Corruption in UN Peacekeeping Forces
sor Bernd Berber of New York University
conducted a survey of transactional sex
(prostitution) by UN peacekeepers in Liberia; he found that over 50% of women
reported incidents of transactional sex,
75% of which were with UN in country
personnel. His report concluded: “Our
findings raise the concern that the private actions of UN personnel in the field
may set back the UN’s broader gender
equality and economic development
goals.” (17)
Legal has been given the task of
evaluating UN peacekeeping operations
and developing recommendations for
further improvement in reducing incidents of abuse by UN peacekeeping personnel.
agreements, defuse escalation in wartorn nations and aid in the reintegration of former combatants into a peaceful society. Peacekeepers are drawn
from member nations and uniformed
with blue helmets or blue berets to distinguish them from other combatants.
UN Peacekeeping is organized
under the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations and tasked as “a unique and
dynamic instrument developed by the
Organization as a way to help countries
torn by conflict to create the conditions
for lasting peace.” Operations are categorized as peace building, peacemaking
and peace enforcement. (18)
History & Relevant
International Actions
Since 1948, one of the primary
responsibilities of the United Nations
has been to provide peacekeeping forces to assist in the maintenance of peace
In 1988, the UN Peacekeeping
Forces received the Nobel Peace Prize
for their contribution to world peace by
having “played a significant role in reducing the level of conflict even though
13
Topic B: Corruption in UN Peacekeeping Forces
the fundamental causes of the struggles was at a school protected by the UN
frequently remain.” (19)
peacekeeping forces. Captain Luc Lemaire and around 90 other peacekeep
The UN Peacekeeping Forces ers were residing in the area when over
are only deployed when both parties
to a conflict accept their presence. As
a neutral party, they can be helpful in
helping to avoid having a conflict escalate. While the General Assembly of the
UN may vote to deploy the Peacekeeping Forces, they are normally deployed
through a Security Council decision.
Regardless, operational control is held
by the Secretary-General and his secretariat.
2,000 people flooded into the school
seeking asylum (22). After several days
Since the first deployment to Captain Lemaire was pulled out by UN
monitor the Arab-Israeli conflict in command in order to secure foreign1948, Peacekeepers have been deployed ers to bring them safely to the airport.
to over 60 conflicts. These deployments There had been warnings of the mass
are occurring with accelerated frequen- genocide to the UN and they had been
cy – only 13 occurred before the award ignored. As a result the peace keeping
of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988; there forces were not prepared for the mass
have been over 48 deployments since onslaught that occurred. Within hours
that time. Currently, the UN Peacekeep- of them abandoning the school all of its
ers are deployed in sixteen locations occupants were killed by Tutsi extremacross four continents (20).
ists (23).
Case Study
Current Situation
Rwanda
The failure to protect the civilians
in Rwanda is not unique. There have
been numerous other failures including
a massacre of over 8,000 Muslim men
in Srebrenica, a location in Bosnia that
was supposedly a “safe zone.”
One example of corruption or
failure to protect civilians is in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide, which occurred in 1994, resulted in the death of
over 1 million people (21). A particular
instance of failure to protect civilians 14
Although the UN has attempted
Topic B: Corruption in UN Peacekeeping Forces
to address issues of abuse and corruption in the past, recent research suggests that activity has suffered from
significant underreporting and have
placed unprecedented pressure on the
UN to devise a solution. High profile
allegations against French soldiers in
the Central African Republic and allegations of systematic abuse in Liberia
despite a stated zero tolerance policy
for such activities have created an environment in which a definitive response
is required.
to engage in reporting, education, judicial processes and training of peacekeeping personnel. Regardless of what
the specific measures look like, the international community has a moral obligation to continue the improvement
in UN peacekeeping operations and address issues of corruption and abuse.
Questions to Consider
• Is there enough being done to solve
this problem?
Developing Solutions
• What is the best way to create
additional legislation? What should this
To address the challenges of ad- legislation address?
dressing corruption and abuse by UN
peacekeepers, the international com- • How can the United Nations attempt
munity must take a resolute, yet del- to stop corruption in the peace keepicate approach, keeping in mind that ing forces as opposed to only giving out
solutions must balance the need for in punishments after the damage has alcountry personnel with the resistance ready been done?
of PCCs and TCCs to subject their citizens to foreign or supranational disci- • What are the most serious issues in
plinary processes. (26) Less controver- corruption and should they be priorisial measures would address monitoring tized?
and compliance, reporting structures
and best practice disciplinary process- • How can we best get countries who
es. Such measures could be in the form have felt wronged and attacked by the
of funded UN task forces, judicial forces, Peacekeeping Forces to begin to trust
training processes and reporting proce- them and use them again?
dures. Additionally, Legal may encourage the providing of forms of adminis- • Has your country been affected by cortrative aid, ranging from compensation ruption in the peacekeeping forces? If
for victims of abuse, to encouraging the so how could that affect your position
deployment of more troops from higher on the use of and punishment of peaceincome countries, to providing advisors keeping forces?
15
Endnotes
1. Thurer, Prof. Daniel. Foreword to Targeted Killing in International Law, Nils
Melzer, 2010
2. Eichensehr, Kristen. “On the offensive: assassination policy under international law.” Harvard International Review no. 3 (2003): 36. Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost.
3. “Targeted Killings - The Future of the War on Terror?” EInternational Relations. N.p., n.d.
4. Ibid.
5. UNHCR. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 1979. http://www2.
ohchr.org/english/law/codeofconduct.htm
6. United Nations. Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. http://www.un.org/en/
documents/udhr/
7. Greenwood, Christopher. “The Caroline Case”. Max Planck Encyclopedia of
Public International Law, 2009. http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=/epil/
entries/law-9780199231690-e261
8. BBC “Bin Laden Documents Released”, BBC News, May 3 2012. http://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17941778
9. “Pakistanis protest latest US drone strike”, (video) The Washington Post, January 11 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pakistanis-protest-latestus-drone-strike-104/2012/01/11/
10. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/28/sex-abuse-scandals-castshadow-over-un-peacekeeping-summit.html
11. Nguyen, Athena M. “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on Peacekeeping Operations.” Journal of International Peacekeeping, 2015, 142-73.
12. Ibid.
16
Endnotes
13. http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/BR-CompleteVersion-Dec03.pdf
14. Nguyen, Athena M. “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on Peacekeeping Operations.” Journal of International Peacekeeping, 2015, 142-73.
15. Ibid.
16. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/beber/files/Beber_Gilligan_Guardado_Karim_
TS.pdf
17. Ibid.
18. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/
19. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.
html
20. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/documents/operationslist.pdf
21. Ibid.
22. http://survivors-fund.org.uk/resources/rwandan-history/statistics/
23. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/un-united-nations-peace/
24. Ibid.
25. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/9/28/sex-abuse-scandals-castshadow-over-un-peacekeeping-summit.html
26. Nguyen, Athena M. “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse on Peacekeeping Operations.” Journal of International Peacekeeping, 2015, 142-73.
17