Skip Navigation

European Journal of International Law 2008 19(3):509-531; doi:10.1093/ejil/chn029
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, K. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The European Journal of International Law Vol. 19 no. 3 © EJIL 2008; all rights reserved

Attribution of Conduct in Peace Operations: The ‘Ultimate Authority and Control’ Test

Kjetil Mujezinovic Larsen*

* Research Fellow/PhD Candidate, the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, the University of Oslo. E-mail: k.m.larsen{at}nchr.uio.no

   Abstract

The article addresses the issue of whether conduct in international peace operations is attributable to the troop contributing states or to the United Nations, taking the European Court of Human Rights’ admissibility decision in the Behrami and Saramati cases as a point of reference. The Court concluded that conduct by UNMIK and KFOR troops in Kosovo is attributable to the United Nations. The article examines the content of the ‘ultimate authority and control’ test that is applied by the Court, and argues that the Court should have taken a different approach. The Court's test is in the author's view difficult to reconcile with the International Law Commission's work on the responsibility of international organizations, with United Nations practice on responsibility for unlawful conduct in peace operations, and with the Court's own jurisprudence concerning attribution of conduct to the state. The author argues further that the Court's arguments are incomplete even if the Court's approach were to be considered correct. The article concludes by expressing concern that the Court's decision, when seen in connection with previous case law, in practice renders the European Convention on Human Rights irrelevant in international peace operations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.