Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

control of UNPROFOR from the moment of its arrival in the former Yugoslavia. Noconditions were attached to the deployment.’352. Besides the fact that there was no written agreement (as is usually concluded betweenthe UN and the state providing troops), the NIOD also established that The Netherlandsretained sovereign authority and that the administrative and logistical responsibilitiesremained in practice Dutch responsibilities. The NIOD established further that theauthority that was transferred did not extend beyond Operational Control, which,according to the NIOD, was a more restricted form of authority than OperationalCommand.353. Where there are no formal arrangements in place, then, according to the Secretary-General of the UN, the following applies (see, Report of the Secretay-General onFinancing of the United Nations Protection Force (…), of 20 September 1996(A/51/389, paragraphs 17-18, page 6):‘In the absence of formal arrangements between the United Nations and the State orStates providing troops, responsibility would be determined in each and every caseaccording to the degree of effective control exercised by either party in the conduct ofthe operation.’354. It must be presumed that the conduct of Dutchbat and, in a wider sense, the UN forces(for example, the airplanes that should have carried out air strikes), must be attributedinitially to the UN, for as long as and to the extent that the UN exercised effectivecontrol over the UN forces.355. The presumption of attribution to the UN can be rebutted by demonstrating that effectivecontrol was lacking (see, the 2 nd ILC Report over the ILC Articles for InternationalOrganisations, 14/15 number (7)):© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com151