Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
24. In addition to protection of the territory of the Safe Area the UN ought also to protect thecivilian population of the Safe Area. The preamble to UN resolution 836 (1993) stated inthat connection:‘Determined to ensure the protection of the civilian population in Safe Areas and topromote a lasting political solution,(…)’.25. The Secretary-General expressly cited the protection of the civilian population as a goalin his statement of 9 May 1994 (page 5, V The way ahead):‘No. 16.There has existed a certain ambiguity as regards UNPROFOR’s mandate in the SafeArea: is its role to defend a geographically defined Safe Area or is it to deter, throughits presence, attacks on the civilian populations living therein? The Security Councilclearly intended the latter, but a perceived lack of clarity of intent may havecontributed to misunderstandings and false expectations, by both warring parties andby the international community, of UNPROFOR’s responsibilities in Gorazde. Based ona careful analysis of Security Council resolutions 824 (1993), 836 (1993), 844 (1993)and 913 (1994) as well as relevant reports of the Secretary-General, UNPROFORunderstands its mission as follows:To protect the civilian populations of designated Safe Areas against armed attacks andother hostile acts, through the presence of its troops and, if necessary, through theapplication of air power, in accordance with agreed procedures.’‘No. 22“Should UNPROFOR determine that activities in those Safe Areas pose a threat totheir populations, then it will act in accordance with its responsibilities, in closecooperation with the NATO.’26. The Secretary-General confirmed in his statement that the use of force both for selfdefenseand for the defense of the civilian population in the Safe Areas was permitted:‘No. 17© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com20
…Should UNPROFOR’s presence prove insufficient to deter an attack, it could berequired to resort to close air support to protect its own members or to request airstrikes to compel an end to the attack of the Safe Areas.’27. The Secretary-General subsequently concluded in his statement that the concept of theSafe Areas had to be adapted. The Secretary-General wished to protect the civilianpopulation but also to remain impartial, without, however, impeding the possibility ofthereby using force:‘No. 24In my view, the successful implementation of the safe-area concept requires theacceptance of three overriding principles:(a)(b)(c)That the intention of Safe Areas is primarily to protect people and not to defendterritory and that UNPROFOR’s protection of these areas is not intended tomake it a party to the conflict;That the method of execution of the safe-area task should not, if possible, detractfrom, but rather enhance, UNPROFOR’s original mandates in Bosnia andHerzegovina, namely supporting humanitarian relief operations and contributingto the overall peace process through the implementation of cease-fires and localdisengagements;That the mandate must take into account UNPROFOR’s resource limitations andthe conflicting priorities that will inevitably arise from unfolding events.(…)‘No. 25The UNPROFOR approach outlined above would more clearly define the geographicallimitations of the Safe Areas, UNPROFOR’s responsibilities therein and the obligationsof the warring parties with respect to them. This approach is a manifestation ofUNPROFOR’s resolve to protect civilian populations, regardless of ethnic background.It is not, however, UNPROFOR’s intention to defend territory nor to enter the fray as abelligerent. UNPROFOR has ba, is and must remain impartial. If UNPROFOR must© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com21
- Page 1 and 2: WRIT OF SUMMONSDISTRICT COURT, THE
- Page 3 and 4: IN ORDER:on Wednesday, thetwo thous
- Page 5 and 6: - every request by the inhabitants
- Page 7 and 8: 8. The fate of the civilian populat
- Page 9 and 10: IV Tender of evidence 446I Facts5.
- Page 11 and 12: NIOD. This Report is referred to as
- Page 13 and 14: 12. The Yugoslav People’s Army (o
- Page 15 and 16: ‘Prior to departing, he addressed
- Page 17 and 18: - UN resolution 816 (31 March 1993)
- Page 19: No. 4:Decides to ensure full respec
- Page 23 and 24: 30. To reiterate here, the question
- Page 25 and 26: UN and the State of the Netherlands
- Page 27 and 28: Brigade. In addition, the State of
- Page 29 and 30: 43. The choice in favour of deploym
- Page 31 and 32: The government parties replied to t
- Page 33 and 34: population during the training as
- Page 35 and 36: Potocari/Srebrenica. This chain of
- Page 37 and 38: 63. As appears from the above, and
- Page 39 and 40: eference to the failure to act of D
- Page 41 and 42: ‘I have been directed, today 29 M
- Page 43 and 44: leaders (Milosevic, Karadzic and Ml
- Page 45 and 46: observation post was not carried ou
- Page 47 and 48: attack on the Safe Area on 6 July 1
- Page 49 and 50: single shot being fired and OP-F wa
- Page 51 and 52: immediate and robust reaction Nicol
- Page 53 and 54: know what Dutchbat itself would do
- Page 55 and 56: that the enclave was continuously e
- Page 57 and 58: ‘You are to use all means at your
- Page 59 and 60: Commander therefore gave the order
- Page 61 and 62: he proposed to have Karremens arres
- Page 63 and 64: Brantz, to establish that there was
- Page 65 and 66: officers and the State of the Nethe
- Page 67 and 68: had any purpose to go ahead with th
- Page 69 and 70: Voorhoeve (see also number 307 of t
24. In addition to protection <strong>of</strong> the territory <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area the UN ought also to protect thecivilian population <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area. The preamble to UN resolution 836 (1993) stated inthat connection:‘Determined to ensure the protection <strong>of</strong> the civilian population in Safe Areas and topromote a lasting political solution,(…)’.25. The Secretary-General expressly cited the protection <strong>of</strong> the civilian population as a goalin his statement <strong>of</strong> 9 May 1994 (page 5, V The way ahead):‘No. 16.There has existed a certain ambiguity as regards UNPROFOR’s mandate in the SafeArea: is its role to defend a geographically defined Safe Area or is it to deter, throughits presence, attacks on the civilian populations living therein? The Security Councilclearly intended the latter, but a perceived lack <strong>of</strong> clarity <strong>of</strong> intent may havecontributed to misun<strong>der</strong>standings and false expectations, by both warring parties andby the international community, <strong>of</strong> UNPROFOR’s responsibilities in Gorazde. Based ona careful analysis <strong>of</strong> Security Council resolutions 824 (1993), 836 (1993), 844 (1993)and 913 (1994) as well as relevant reports <strong>of</strong> the Secretary-General, UNPROFORun<strong>der</strong>stands its mission as follows:To protect the civilian populations <strong>of</strong> designated Safe Areas against armed attacks andother hostile acts, through the presence <strong>of</strong> its troops and, if necessary, through theapplication <strong>of</strong> air power, in accordance with agreed procedures.’‘No. 22“Should UNPROFOR determine that activities in those Safe Areas pose a threat totheir populations, then it will act in accordance with its responsibilities, in closecooperation with the NATO.’26. The Secretary-General confirmed in his statement that the use <strong>of</strong> force both for selfdefenseand for the defense <strong>of</strong> the civilian population in the Safe Areas was permitted:‘No. 17© <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com20
Change language