THE RULE OF ATTRIBUTION FOR PEACEKEEPERS POST-DUTCH SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS ON MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA IN 2019: A DISCOURSE ON PRESUMPTIVE V. PREVENTIVE INTERPRETATION

Abstract

Peacekeeping operations have become an integral component of the United Nations in promoting global peace and security. Yet, as demands increase to hold peacekeepers accountable for their misdeeds, the legal principle of attribution within the framework of the law of responsibility remains ambiguous and difficult to define. Hence, this study aims to contribute to the discourse on the attribution of the Peacekeepers' conduct, especially on the presumptive v. preventive interpretation of Article 7 Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations. Under the presumptive interpretation, the peacekeeper’s action is presumed to be attributed to the UN; however, attribution can be rebutted if Troop Contributing States (TCS) exercise control over the peacekeepers. In contrast, preventive interpretation argues that attribution must be determined by which entity, TCS or the UN, has the power to prevent the alleged conduct. This study analyzed how the Dutch Supreme Court’s rulings in 2019 approached the question of attribution toward the Dutch Battalion during the mission of UNPROFOR. The Supreme Court found that the action of the Dutch Battalion was attributable to the Netherlands since the Netherlands fulfills the elements of effective control as governed under Article 8 ARSIWA. Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected the preventive interpretation earlier endorsed in the Nuhanovic case. This study employed a normative juridical approach. This study argues that the Court’s rulings on presumptive interpretation are aligned with the practices of the UN’s peacekeepers and the intended purpose of Article 7 DARIO, which emphasizes attribution on factual consideration.