The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution Friday that strongly condemns attacks on humanitarian workers and U.N. personnel and demands that all combatants protect them in accordance with international law.
The vote was 14-0 with Russia abstaining.
The Swiss-sponsored resolution expresses grave concern at the growing number of attacks and threats against U.N. and humanitarian personnel along with the continuing disregard and violations of international humanitarian law by combatants.
Switzerland’s U.N. Ambassador Pascale Baeriswyl welcomed the strong support for the resolution, which had 97 co-sponsors, telling the council its objective was simple but important: to protect the men and women working as humanitarians and for the United Nations who risk their lives every day “to help people affected by armed conflict.”
The UN Security Council has been vague on UN Forces ‘srike back’ parametres, and to think that UN Forces would draw their weapons against the IDF is absurd at best. Never mind the fact if the UN was as militaristic as you suppose, why hasn’t a force been sent to Haiti or the Ukraine to help?
https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/28/1/1/6659066?login=false
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698249.2022.2119506
Just a helpful note, Ukrainians want people to call the country “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”. The latter was the Soviet naming convention when it was a region within a larger entity and not appropriate for a sovereign country.
https://theconversation.com/its-ukraine-not-the-ukraine-heres-why-178748
Thanks. TIL …
UN peacekeepers are not in the business of making up their own foreign policy. But typically their ROE allows them to engage active threats against them… Such as being bombed.
Imagine United States peacekeepers taking fire from Israel. How long do you think they would not stop that fire from happening?
Did you read the research papers I linked, because they say different.
No. You didn’t quote the relevant sections.
Thanks for the downvote!