The occurrence of harmful conducts in peace operations to the detriment of the local population, which in some cases amounted to serious violations of international law, have generated a growing demand for justice by aggrieved individuals. This has led to our main research question, which looks at the legal consequences under international law of harmful conduct carried out by States and international organisations in peace operations. The study submits that the variety of actors and the complex legal interplays between them calls into question a plurality of responsibility. The term ‘responsibility regimes’ is used here to refer to three concepts generally associated with the legal notion of responsibility, namely international responsibility, accountability, and liability. The research will address the three responsibility regimes in turn, and will unfold around two main issues: i) the allocation of responsibility and ii) the remedies available under the three responsibility regimes.
International responsibility can be defined as the legal relationship that arises from the breach of an international obligation, attributable to a State or to an international organisation, in the absence of circumstances precluding wrongfulness.
The concept of accountability has a twofold meaning: on the one hand, it is understood as the duty of an entity to give account of the exercise of its powers vis à vis others, as it is the case of monitoring and reporting activities of international organizations; one the other hand, accountability implyies the possibility for other actors to hold to account an entity for the exercise of its powers against certain standards, as in the case of compliance mechanisms. In peace operations, reference can be made to the UNMIK Ombudsperson, UN HRAP, EULEX HRRP or the UN Trust Fund for Victims of SEA, to cite a few.
Liability is characterised by the obligation to pay compensation for the damage caused, regardless of whether the conduct causing the harm is internationally wrongful. In peace operations, the liability regime characterises the functioning of claims systems established by States and international organizations to settle third-party claims.
This thorough examination shows how the three responsibility regimes come into question, highlight their strengths and weaknesses in responding to the individual quest for justice vis à vis wrongful acts carried out by States and international organizations in peace operations. The hypothesis is made that the responsibility gap can be progressively closed by enhancing the functioning of each responsibility regime, whereby they would mutually complement and reinforce each other to provide a credible answer to victims of wrongful act carried out by States and international organizations in peace operations.
