Looks like they got a war on their hands

[William Ashley]

The UN is exchanging fire in the Ivory Coast.

Personally this UN peacekeeping mission appears to have just turned into an occupation during a civil war - and they have backed the political side, instead of the legal one.

http://af.reuters.com/article/ivoryCoastNews/idAFN2020792620101220

U.N. officials say privately that their troops will not go into battle against one army or another.

Who exactly are they fighting?

the U.N. force in Ivory Coast believes it killed a member of the armed forces

Ggagbo ordered all blue helmets -- the nickname for U.N. peacekeeping troops -- out of the country. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has rejected that demand and said UNOCI would remain.

Although not all institutions are technically occupied yet, it would be a contravention of the geneva convetion on war for the UN to change domestic government --- or the law that put Ggagbo into power - contrary to the global consensus... it would be the UN committing a war crime.

Can the UN bind its members legally to non consensual interventions?

Article 2(7): Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII

I don't see any UNSC resolution on this.... it seems an illegal use of un peace keeping forces.

...

the President of the Republic shall use the powers conferred upon him by the Constitution to

implement by the end of September 2004 the provisions of section III on eligibility of the Programme of the

Government of National Reconciliation annexed to the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

Ok it seems like they just made a UNSC resolution on it...

however - I think it is important to take into account that Ggagbo is still legally president.. as long as the laws used to enforce that are within the law of the country, it isn't illegal, even if unsavoury to most of the rest of the world.

I'm curious to see what order this stuff happened in though.. did the secretary general say they were staying before the UNSC voted on it.. or not?

It appears the resolution was today but the secretary general made the statements over the weekend...

also the gaurding of the oppositions compound doesn't exactly meet the definition of the mission. (even though it may be humanitarian)

documenting and intervening may be two seperate legal things completely.

I'm not saying it is really per se bad on humanitarian grounds..

but actually it could be causing far more misery than not.

The principles are clear but the fundamentals on the law in the matter demonstrate there to be extreme, and potentially illegal biases enforced.

the UN to "certify elections" seems problematic legally. What does the rejection of the certification mean?

That they loose status there to.. then what of the mandate, does it have no political consensus or basis to it...

it seems problematic... that the UN be the "only authority" on elections, doesn't that override domestic law?

Then what do electoral laws matter, if the UN doesn't recognize them in their certification.

although in question for sure... is the law not the law.

also the stated

abduction by unidentified armed individuals in military uniform

are by unidentified individuals.

--------------------------

Although it is a little grizzly... overall I think that the way it is being handled may lead to escalations rather than working on a compramise--- since the executive of the government (including the military and judicature) is upholding the constitution and electoral laws - even if not on a simple basis. It is still the law.

Perhaps the UN could prevent abuse of the law by creating an agreement limiting the courts to determine ballot adminisability..

or request arbitrartion in the world court.. if an appeal on the judicial count of ballots was in question. So that the judges decisions could be weighed to be within the constitutional grounds of the ivory coast, rather than the UN enforcing "foreign laws" contrary to the geneva convention, that violate domestic law.

Certifying and contesting are two seperate things.

The UNSC resolution to certify, is not the same as an ability to contest or overrule results. certification is a way of allowing results, not in altering them.

The UN used foreign organizations ex. the AU and ECOWAS as a means to elect the president of ivory coast... however the overule of domestic jurisdiction seems to be contrary to the UN charter.

resolution 1765 specifically states

Recalls the importance of the provisions of the Ouagadougou political

Agreement, including paragraph 8.1, and urges the Ivorian political forces to rely on

the mediation by the Facilitator, for any major difficulty concerning the electoral

process;

it does not say for the UN to endorse the opposition member.

http://www.cocorioko.net/?p=5418

An arbitrary decision is not facilitation.

Section 8.1 of the Ouagadougou political

Agreement states that if there is a difference of opinion in the agreement it will go to facilitated arbitration not a unilateral decision by ecowas. This same agreement is being used as the grounds of certification of 2nd stage voting results that were not facilitated by the government authority. While it may be clear atleast the reason for rejecting the results could be made.

My qualm here is that the disagreement wasn't allowed to be voiced through the actual prior agreed mechanism.

The UN is clearly acting outside the law in this situation - by endorsing the outtarou guy.

I'm not saying the same thing might not result, but atleast it would be legally legitimate to a higher degree if at all

Also there was an election irregularity

Ivory Coast's long-delayed poll on Sunday

the election was not regular anyway.

The opposition itself claimed fraud...

http://indepthafrica.com/news/westafrica/ivory-coast-opposition-claims-election-fraud-demands-recount/

and demanded a recount...

Yet the UN certified the results? How is this when both sides disagreed with various stages of the elections.. why not just hold a reelection.

A coalition of Ivory Coast’s opposition parties wants votes from the Oct. 31 presidential election to be recounted because of what it alleged is evidence of fraud, an opposition spokesman said.

The coalition said it detected “serious irregularities” in the election results

but but isn't it the independent electoral commission that counts the votes?

Isn't that the same group that gave the results for certification?

Yet the UN is certifying the elections that both sides say are "irregular"

also on the potential human rights issues

13. The Ivorian parties recognise that restoration of long-term peace and stability requires respect for human

rights and the rule of law. ln this regard, they agreed to cooperate fully with the International Commission of

Inquiry, which has been established in accordance with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement to look into the

human rights violations committed in Cote d'Ivoire since the beginning of the crisis on 19 September 2002.

The UN is clearly overstepping its mandate, and violating their own agreement requiring facilitation on disagreement with the terms of the agreement. The certification holds no force without facilitation if there is disagreement with the application. Section 8.1 clearly states that.

Edited December 20, 2010 by William Ashley

[GostHacked]

I think they African Union kicked them out of it as well.