UN Peacekeeping in Lebanon and the use of force

A traditional peacekeeping force should not rely on the use of force to achieve its mission. However, when a party to a conflict fails to give the required level of cooperation, a decision must be made regarding what degree of force, if any, may be resorted to in the circumstances. At an early stage in the UNIFIL mission, it was decided that operational effectiveness would be curtailed in order to adhere to the principle of non‐use of force. This led to criticism, not all of which was without foundation. There were occasions when UNIFIL threatened and used force as a last resort in self‐defence. There are other occasions when it failed to do so and thereby invited further harassment. The experience of UNIFIL shows how the principle of non‐use of force has been controversial and difficult to apply in practice. This was exacerbated by the ambiguities in the mandate and the lack of support from the Security Council. During the ONUC mission, the ground rules for the use of force changed as the mission progressed and it could be described as the first instance of ‘mission creep’. This did not occur with UNIFIL, and the non‐confrontational policy adopted by the Secretary‐General has generally been successful.