Importantly, there are two areas that require the
provision of a significant and comprehensive set of
standards. The first is in the area of standardizing what
constitutes an abuse; only by stipulating consistent
criteria for human rights abuses can the discussion
of potential solutions proceed in a meaningful way.
The challenge for this committee is thus to develop
a rubric for identifying not only the presence but also
the magnitude of human rights abuses. Moreover, the
committee must address the challenge of developing
the standards that dictate the type of intervention
that should be employed in response to different
humanitarian crises. This is a particularly difficult issue,
as a meaningful resolution must outline not only the
form of the intervention but also the key players that
will execute the mission. In particular, it is important
to clarify the scope and nature of the mandate under
which such interventionist actions can be taken.
Finally, this committee can offer prescriptions Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design
11
on the best practices for combatting humanitarian
crises. Important in this consideration are the options
of prophylactic action and prevention. The degree
to which preemptive action is included under the
responsibility to protect thus determines one’s vision
of this concept; a holistic resolution must therefore
also include guidelines on how humanitarian disasters
can be detected and prevented before they even
happen. The form and degree of the intervention
employed to realize this end must also be clarified
and drafted into a set of legal standards. To this end,
a key component of the problem is an inconsistent or
unreliable flow of information; every set of standards
requires the necessary body of information to reach
a valid conclusion. A comprehensive solution should
thus propose a method of maintaining channels of
communication and information flow, even during
times of crisis.
The responsibility to protect is a difficult norm to
realize, and it will be the task of this committee to
grasp the complexities of this topic in its entirety.
It is important that the solution reflect the goals
and aspirations of the international community yet
also retain a practical dimension that will permit its
implementation in instances of crisis. Particularly
important will be a consideration of the current
situation and an awareness of the incentive structures
that will motivate the implementation of these clear
legal standards. Indeed, this problem is not merely
of academic interest but rather pertains directly to
the resolution of several pressing contemporary
issues. Significantly, a meaningful resolution in this
committee can elucidate a means of overcoming the
international stasis that paralyzes any response to
contemporary human rights crises like the massacres
in Syria and other despotic crackdowns during the
Arab Spring. Elucidating the responsibility to protect
is far more than a scholarly detail; it has the potential
to save lives and combat suffering.

History and Discussion of the Problem
Origin and Evolution of the Problem
The question of intervention presents a dilemma
for any nation that must engage in a calculus that
balances national interests with ideological principles.
The problem is exacerbated by a shortage of
resources that forces commitment to a certain course
of action at the penury of the other. These conditions
are especially important because they constitute the
realities that shape the political will to action. This
ability to muster political will ultimately determines
the extent to which an ideal course of action can be
realized. To understand this issue, delegates should
consider the pressures, both internal and external,
that influence the final decision to execute a certain
international strategy.
This ambiguity often gives rise to international
stasis in the face of mass atrocities and genocides.
Without international institutions – such as the
United Nations – the costs involved in establishing
a coalition to initiate international intervention may
overpower the moral imperative of the action. The
aftermath of WWII, and in particular the revelation
of the Holocaust, created a powerful incitement
to action. The formation of the United Nations can
be viewed, in part, as an attempt to provide the
necessary engagement with international actors to
combat future atrocities via prevention and directed
intervention. Indeed, the UN’s capability to engage
in such matters was clearly envisioned via the
establishment of the UN peacekeeping force.
Distinguishable from both peace building and
peacemaking, peacekeeping “is a unique and dynamic
instrument developed by the [United Nations] as a way
to help countries torn by conflict foster the conditions
for lasting peace.”11,12 While it constitutes one of
the prominent measures undertaken by the UN to
maintain international peace and security throughout
the world, the deployment of peacekeeping troops Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design
12
does not constitute a comprehensive solution. Rather,
it is a measure employed concurrently with other
significant activities, including “conflict prevention
and mediation, peacemaking, peace enforcement,
and peace building.”13 In considering the viability of
peacekeeping, it is important to remain cognizant
of the evolving perceptions and capabilities of UN
peacekeeping forces.
Modern UN peacekeeping began in 1948 and has
its origins in military observer missions to highly
combustible or war-torn regions.14 The first missions
occurred under the guise of the United Nations Truce
Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the United
Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP); both of these missions typified the UN”s
form of military engagement contained within a force
in the low hundreds, with a focus on observation and
monitoring.15 The role of UN peacekeeping troops
experienced a shift during the escalation of the
Cold War, acquiring increased military capabilities
to respond to a wider range of crises. The first
armed peacekeeping operation, incorporating the
deployment of the First United Nations Emergency
Force (UNEF 1), took place in 1956 during the Suez
Crisis.16
Peacekeeping efforts were further intensified
during the wars that precipitated from decolonization,
primarily due to increased international solidarity
over the issue of military intervention in developing
nations. Indeed, the first large-scale mission occurred
in 1960 in the Congo, and involved the launching of the
UN Operation in the Congo (ONUC).17 With increasing
commitment to bringing stability to war-torn
regions, however, have come elevated risks to active
personnel. Incorporating 20,000 active soldiers at its
peak, ONUC experienced 250 UN personnel deaths as
a direct consequence of service on the mission.18 The
increasing human cost of large-scale peacekeeping
operations is an important consideration during
discussions of military intervention.
Following the end of the Cold War, the magnitude
and frequency of peacekeeping efforts surged,
inspired by a newfound consensus among a less
fractured international community. Between 1989 and
1994, the Security Council authorized 20 operations,
increasing the number of active peacekeepers
from 11,000 to 75,000.19 These missions resulted in
generally positive outcomes and were particularly
successful in implementing peace agreements to
long, drawn-out conflicts; these forces were able
to help nations such as “Angola, Mozambique,
Namibia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Cambodia”
as they sought to “stabilize, re-organize, elect new
governments and build democratic institutions.”20
These achievements highlighted the newfound
capacity of UN peacekeeping in its ability to deliver
binding solutions when the Security Council could not
generate a sufficiently robust mandate or provide the
necessary resources for action.

The privileged position of the peacekeeping
forces, however, was undermined by failures in
highly unstable regions. Inadequate resources and
flagging political support imperiled missions to
Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Rwanda.21 The augmenting
figure for civilian deaths and the intensification of
hostilities during this period resulted in a dramatic
decline in the reputation of United Nations
peacekeeping. Perception of UN peacekeepers is
a critical element that influences the effectiveness
of this form of international intervention. Bad press
during multinational intervention procedures can be
particularly damaging to any process of international
intervention. The polarization of the Security Council,
fueled by a divide between East and West, can work
to weaken the credibility and public perception of
the UN. Equally, political apathy and ignorance can
incapacitate a peacekeeping force, even if already
located in the epicenter of war. As ideological shifts Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design
13
occur and national rivalries exacerbate, delegates
must consider how a framework can be applied to
encompass these eventualities.
During the 1990s, the Security Council moved to
limit the number of new peacekeeping missions in
order to reassess the efficacy and limitations of such
military engagements. Key actors were particularly
cognizant of the internal bureaucracy and a lack of
guiding standards that had prompted the stasis that
followed the establishment of the UN. Inaction from
critical actors during crises in Yugoslavia, Somalia,
and Rwanda demonstrated the paralysis that was
sourced from incomplete information and ambiguous
guidelines. In the wake of this, the UN reasserted its
peacekeeping abilities via more complex operations
in African countries such as the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, Côte
d’Ivoire, the Sudan (in the south of the country and
in Darfur), Eritrea/Ethiopia, and Chad and the Central
African Republic.22 Since 1948, 63 peacekeeping
operations have been initiated by the United Nations.
Hundreds of thousands of military personnel, as well
as tens of thousands of UN police and other civilians,
from more than 120 countries, have participated in
UN operations.23 And the human toll has tallied more
than 2,400 peacekeepers from 118 nations over the
course of all missions.24 Currently, the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) manages more
than 110,000 uniformed and civilian personnel who
are serving in 20 different peace operations.25
The evolution of the UN peacekeeping force reflects
significant changes to the issue of international
intervention and has significant consequences for
enacting the responsibility to protect. The dramatic
changes in attitude that followed the end of the Cold
War demonstrated the necessity of international
cohesion in carrying out military intervention and
implementing peace agreements. In particular,
delegates should be aware of the active transition
of peacekeeping forces as the UN expanded field
operations from “strictly military tasks, to complex
“multidimensional” enterprises designed to ensure
the implementation of comprehensive peace
agreements and assist in laying a foundation for
sustainable peace.”26
Furthermore, the responsibility to protect has
shifted in focus to reflect changes to the nature of
conflicts. Originally intended for the mediation of
war across borders, peacekeeping is no longer solely
concentrated on inter-State conflict but has also
been re-oriented to address the problems associated
with intra-State conflict and civil wars. Moreover,
peacekeeping missions have expanded beyond their
military foundations, now incorporating personnel
from across the professional spectrum, including:
“administrators and economists, police officers,
legal experts, gender officers, de-miners, electoral
observers, human rights monitors, specialists in civil
affairs and governance, humanitarian workers, and
experts in communications and public information.”27
The makeup of peacekeeping forces has experienced
a similar transition as military personnel are
now largely sourced from South Asia (Pakistan,
Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal) and Africa
(Ghana, Nigeria) – a shift from the erstwhile dominant
contributions of European nations. Indeed, women
play an increasingly important role in peacekeeping
operations; the first ever all-female contingent –
the 125-strong Formed Police Unit from India – was
deployed in Liberia in 2007.28