Introduction

The far-reaching scope of peacekeeping mandates and the multitude of actors deployed in contemporary peace operations render the application of peace operations as human rights mechanism, much more difficult compared to traditional UN human rights mechanisms. An often overlooked but significant challenge for peace operations acting in such capacity is the establishment of mutual understanding and agreement on human rights between civilian and military peace actors, and the impact of such an agreement – or absence thereof – on the success of peace operations. This aspect involves issues as diverse as inter-agency cooperation, cultural differences between military and civilian actors and how international human rights law is accepted, embraced and ‘operationalized’ in such complex multicultural and politicized settings. Above all, it addresses the issue of how and under which conditions human rights standards and norms are best advocated by peace actors.

The aim of this article is to examine how UN peace operations may enhance their potential of promoting human rights by analysing how peace actors communicate and reach agreement on human rights. The underlying presumption is that effective human rights promotion and protection is contingent on the existence of a common understanding of human rights among different components of a peace operation. Such examination will be undertaken by analysing data collected in the field in the light of discourse theories of human rights, drawing primarily on Jürgen Habermas' theory of communicative action.