Violating Peace: Sex, Aid and Peacekeeping
Violating Peace: Sex, Aid and Peacekeeping
复制标题
违反和平：性、援助与维持和平
DOI：
10.1080/13533312.2022.2154207
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Kihara-Hunt Ai
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christopher K. Lamont;Kihara-Hunt Ai
这本书对联合国维和人员的性剥削和性虐待（SEA）提供了一个经常被忽视的视角，是一个非常重要的贡献。正如韦斯顿多夫指出的那样，SEA通常被视为孤立的个人不当行为问题，而联合国长期以来一直通过行为和纪律方法来解决这一问题。尽管有一些新的规则、新的办事处和新的义务，联合国的零容忍政策并不是特别成功。这本书认为，如果联合国认真对待SEA的预防和问责，就需要以一种根本不同的方式来看待和处理SEA。特别重要的一点是环评的运作和长期影响。它不仅造成不信任和伤害，破坏了特派团的合法性和能力，而且危及整个国际维和努力和联合国作为一个机构。更严重的是，东南亚国家联盟留下了有害的遗产，成为东道国的榜样，性别不平等、对法治的不尊重、容忍利用权力关系和有罪不罚现象在东道国机构及其人员的行为中根深蒂固。第2章中的访谈结果揭示了维和人员、其他联合国人员和当地行动者的重要观点。显然，许多受访者认为干预者缺乏同理心和责任感是导致SEA的一个因素。种族主义也被认为是一个原因。访谈答复表明，SEA事件损害了答复者对特派团人员和特派团本身的信任。关于选择采访的特派团，这两个选定的特派团是在1990年代进行的。读者很想知道，对最近的稳定型特派团的采访是否会产生类似的结果。另一个可以进一步探讨的问题是，部队和警察派遣国的官员认为SEA的可能原因是什么，以及他们如何将SEA预防纳入维和人员的培训中。
This book is a very significant contribution that provides an often-neglected perspective on sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by UN peacekeepers. Oftentimes, as Westendorf points out, SEA is treated as an issue of isolated individual misconduct, which has long been addressed by the UN through a conduct and discipline approach. The UN’s zero-tolerance policy has not been particularly successful despite a number of new rules, new offices and new obligations. This book argues that SEA needs to be seen and tackled in a fundamentally different way if the UN is serious about SEA prevention and accountability. A particularly important point is the operational and long-term impact of SEA. It undermines not only the legitimacy and capacity of the mission by causing mistrust and harm but also endangers the entire international peacekeeping effort and the UN as an institution. More seriously, SEA leaves a pernicious legacy by serving as a model for the host state whereby gender inequality, disrespect for the rule of law, tolerance of exploitation of power relationships and impunity become entrenched in the host state institutions and their personnel’s behaviour.Interview results presented in Chapter 2 reveal important perspectives from peacekeepers, other UN personnel and local actors. Apparently, many respondents considered the lack of empathy and responsibility on the part of interveners as a factor contributing to SEA. Racism was also suggested as a cause. Interview responses indicate that SEA incidents tainted the trust that respondents had in mission personnel and the mission itself. Regarding the choice of missions on which interviews were conducted, the two selected missions took place in the 1990s. Readers would be curious to know if interviews in recent stabilization-type missions would produce similar findings. Another issue that could have been explored further is what officials in troop-and police-contributing countries regard as possible causes of SEA and how they integrate SEA prevention into peacekeepers’ training.