Children’s Participation in Holding International Peacekeepers Accountable 35
Where a State fails to prosecute their responsible international peacekeeper troop and other allied
personnel SEA perpetrators once repatriated or before, it should be open to the Special Criminal
Court (or potentially the ICC) to have jurisdiction in accord with the respective court’s enabling
statute. Further, host-country immunity should no longer apply in those cases where the TCC fails
to hold its nationals accountable for SEA perpetrated as international peacekeepers.
In the same vein, UN personnel normally covered by UN immunity and privileges under
the UN Convention on Immunities and Privileges160 should not be so covered in terms of criminal
or civil liability regarding SEA crimes or other human rights violations they have perpetrated as
international peacekeepers against the very vulnerable persons they were charged to protect and
serve. Such conduct cannot be considered as unforeseen, unavoidable, accidental or otherwise a
purported inevitable collateral consequence of UN peacekeeping operations for which UN
personnel are not to be held accountable. That lack of accountability is falsely premised on the
proposition that such liability risks would allegedly hinder the operational needs of the UN
peacekeeping mission. The proper legal interpretation of the UN Immunities and Privileges
Convention, it is here contended, does not allow for such a false shield for UN peacekeeper SEA
perpetrators who are Experts and Officials on a UN mission.161 Likewise, the UN as a legal entity
should be civilly liable for such conduct of UN personnel and military directly under its authority
Narrowing the scope of applicable immunities to preclude impunity for all peacekeeper
SEA perpetrated while on UN peacekeeping operations will be realized only if the will of the
international community is mobilized in that direction. The Code Blue Campaign is a step in the
right direction in attempting to raise public awareness and expose the insupportable underlying
reasons regarding the lack of accountability for international peacekeeper SEA of children and
others during UN peacekeeping operations.
In June 2015, the Central African Republic adopted a law establishing such a Special
Criminal Court within its own national legal system, to be located in CAR and to be staffed by
national and international staff and jurists, thus making it a hybrid court, but it has not yet received
sufficient international financial aid and logistical support to make the court operational.163 Given
sufficient funding, the CAR Special Criminal Court would be mandated under its enabling statute
to “investigate and prosecute the gravest crimes committed in the country since 2003, including
war crimes and crimes against humanity.”164 It should be noted that peacekeeper SEA is an affront
160 33 U.N. T.S. 261, supra note 9, at IV-VI.
161 Negotiated Relationship Agreement between the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, supra note
162 Civil lawsuits are a possible vehicle, in some instances, for exposing the inadequate legal grounding of UN
immunity in various cases where the UN is responsible for foreseeable and avoidable serious harms to a population.
However, there are many obstacles to overcoming the notion of UN immunity as absolute unless waived by the UN
itself. See Cholera Litigation, INST. FOR JUST. & DEMOCRACY IN HAITI, http://www.ijdh.org/cholera/cholera-litigation/ (last visited Dec. 30, 2016) (regarding Georges v. United Nations and UN responsibility for a cholera
outbreak in Haiti).
163 Central African Republic: Support the Special Criminal Court, HUM. RTS. WATCH (Nov. 16, 2016),
164 Central African Republic: Progress on Special Court: More Efforts Needed to Get it Operating, HUM. RTS. WATCH
(Dec. 23, 2015), https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/23/central-african-republic-progress-special-court.