Why UN peacekeepers in Haiti are beyond the reach of justice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.When the United States and European countries began trading with Japan in the late 1850s, they forced the Japanese authorities to grant their nationals immunity from prosecution in the Japanese courts.
Extraterritoriality”, as it was called, was one of the humiliations that the nationalists of the Meiji period were passionately determined to reverse: it was seen, reasonably enough, as the thin end of the colonialists’ wedge.
Yet the United Nations has enjoyed a similar degree of protection from the justice systems of the countries where it operates ever since its foundation. If the lawyers representing Haiti’s cholera victims manage to make a dent in it, they will have scored a rare victory.
The “Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations”, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 states that “the Organisation shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes, and that representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organisation shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions”.
Section 29 of the Convention referred to by UN spokesman Martin Nesirky in the rejection of the cholera claims spells out that the UN is the sole arbiter of disputes “to which the United Nations is a party”.
In the case of Haiti, the activities of MINUSTAH, the UN’s stabilisation mission there, are protected by a so-called Status of Forces Agreement which affords the stabilisation force broad protection from actions in the Haitian courts. This should be counterbalanced by the setting up of an independent Standing Claims Commission to compensate those injured by the UN’s activities. But as the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti points out, “despite this requirement, no commission has been established during MINUSTAH’s eight years in Haiti. In fact, no Standing Claims Commission has been established in over 60 years of UN peacekeeping anywhere.”
This helps to explain the impression of impunity that UN peacekeepers have left where they have been accused of crimes and abuses in recent years. They are beyond the reach of justice.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments