The United Nations ought to operate in accordance with the UN Security Charter with regard to a number of issues facing post conflict societies. In his book “United Nations Governance of post Conflict Societies”, it has been found that there are certain contradictions in the peacekeeping role that the UN plays when governing post conflict nations. This was done in Matheson’s (2001) book through the use of two countries i.
e. East Timor and Kosovo. In the latter mentioned book, Matheson (2001) cites the issue of interference in matters that are in essence domestic jurisdiction. Through Article 2 of the UN Security Charter, the UN is given the mandate to do any of the following during its administrative role within post conflict societies • Change political structures • Change boundaries • Alter territorial status • Modify legal systems • Etc
Matheson (2001) notes that by exercising these rights, and then the UN peacekeeping missions may end up taking the role of what sovereign states are supposed to carry out through the actions of their leaders. It should also be noted that the latter functions can only be exercised in extreme situations where the UN feels that failure to act in such a manner may jeopardise the chances of peace and international security. But the contradiction arises in the fact that the UN is the one with the mandate to determine when such a scenario occurs.
Many government related policies are actually thought to fall in line with the domestic jurisdiction of a particular country and it would therefore be difficult for the UN not to cause some conflict of interest with these bodies. When dealing with issues regarding boundary alteration, it is likely that many nations will be in firm opposition to it. This is an extremely sensitive matter and would therefore put into question the legitimacy and the success of peace keeping missions conducted by the United Nations as an International administrator in this regard.
It should also be noted that the issue of boundaries has both elements of international law and domestic law. This is because boundaries affect other nations. However, the option to alter them is an issue of the sovereignty of states. Matheson (2001) also argues that it may sometimes be tricky determining which measures are enforcement measures and which ones are not. Korhonen (2001) also explains that international organisations are now adopting intrusive roles when conducting their peace negotiations or their peace missions.
However, he also argues that post conflict administration is a crucial role in fostering peace for the UN and other bodies because of the fact that it ensures the steady flow of political, economic and social well being in countries that have been host to conflict. For instance, through their mandate as administrators, then the UN can ensure that elections are conducted in a democratic manner. In other words, peace negotiations are justified when the UN finds it necessary to ensure that fair elections are conducted in such politically sensitive areas.
Besides these, the UN has a legal mandate for participating in post conflict regions or countries when there are concerns about security levels. This is because such territories are always in danger of falling victim to security threats. Examples of countries in which these kinds of concerns have been eminent include Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In certain circumstances, the administrative role may take the form of civil society development.
Conflict torn regions often find themselves in situations where they cannot handle the challenges that emanate out of the very nature of these circumstances when dealing with some of the issues. It should also be noted that a large share of the problems facing some the United Nations as administrators are highly ambitious thus making it extremely difficult for these kinds of issues to be addressed properly on their own.
Korhonen (2001) also argues that there is an underlying issue facing the UN in its election monitoring or peace keeping efforts; that of cooperation with other players. The latter author argues that the enormity of post conflict administration is so large that the United Nations cannot handle it alone. In other words, it would be more effective if this particular role was handled by more than one body. In fact, if there was a centrally planned post conflict peace keeping efforts, then chances of succeeding in carrying out this heavy task would have been handled properly.
Additionally, if there was a centrally planned scenario in which a number of international bodies were to work together to govern post conflict regions, then chances are that greater accountability would be restored. Most of the reasons why the United Nations has failed in the promotion of peace within certain conflict torn regions of the world, is that the manner in which it carries out its mandate is not peer reviewed or it has not obtained acknowledgements for some of the action that it carries out.
Consequently, its actions have been viewed with suspicion and the like. In countries such as Kosovo, the United Nations also needed to restore its legitimacy amongst members of the latter country. This would have been more successful if the latter organisation had been operating under a centrally planned governance operation that the organisation is dealing with. However, the creation of such a body or such forms of cooperation requires aggressive institutional and structural changes within this organisation.
All the latter issues are mere suggestions made by Korhonen (2001). The facts on the ground with regard to post conflict administration are highly wanting. The UN possesses powers to intervene into these areas without cooperation with others. Additionally, it is allowed to play an intrusive role if it sees that there is a need for it. However, this legal mandate can only be carried out through adherence United Nations Security Charter.