Conclusion

The United States and the European Union have much different histories regarding the death penalty;

117 Authorized methods, deatH Penalty information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution (last visited April 8, 2013).

118 Death Penalty Archive, delegationoftHe eUroPean Un

-ion to tHe United StateS, http://www.euintheus.org/what-we- do/policy-areas/democracy-and-human-rights/torture-and-capital-punishment/death-penalty/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

119 Id.

120 US Response to EU Statement at Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, delegationoftHe eUroPean Union to tHe United StateS, http://www.euintheus.org/what-we-do/

policy-areas/democracy-and-human-rights/torture-and-capital-punishment/death-penalty/death-penalty-archive-2011/ (last vis-ited April 6, 2013).

121 Koh, supra note 111, at 1105-06.

HILL, Katie R . United States and European Union approaches to the death penalty: America should consider a new perspective. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 10, n. 2, 2013 p. 154-167 165

the European Union has consistently disagreed with use of this punishment while the United States has spent most of the last century refining death penalty legislation, specifically as it applies to the Constitution.

Both Unions, while prioritizing similar rights for citi-zens, have opposite views on the death penalty. The United States, by allowing the death penalty, finds itself among the company of nations such as Japan, Iran, and Afghanistan. These nations have histories of conflict with the United States, specifically as it applies to rights of citizens.

While the reason for these diverse policies could very well be undefinable, the solution might not be.

Given our similarities with the European Union, both economically and constitutionally, it is important for us to consider the approach used there. This is also impor-tant given current interpretation of foreign treaties and the evolving standard of decency. The United States courts and legislators have a history of considering out-side parties when amending or redefining the law in the United States, so continuing this practice with death pe-nalty legislation is only logical. The European Union is interested and willing to provide guidance and thoughts on this troubling topic that the United States has clear-ly struggled with for many years. The United States needs to strive to consider important foreign perspecti-ves concerning the critical subject of the death penalty.

The reasons to consider European Union policies are numerous, while the explanation for the different dea-th penalty policy in dea-the United States is somedea-thing far short of evident.

r

^eFerences

1 Cong. Ch. 9 §§ 1-14 (1790).

18 U.S.C.A. § 3591 29 Stat. 487 (1897).

172 U.S. 303 (1899).

About the European Commission, e^UroPean C^ommiSSion, http://ec.europa.eu/about/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

Authorized methods, d^eatH Penalty information Cen

-ter, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execu-tion (last visited April 8, 2013).

Branch v. Texas, 447 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. 1969).

Charles Alan Wright, et al., History—The Colonial Expe-rience, 30 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. §6344 (2012).

Charter of Fundamental Rights, o^ffiCial weBSitefortHe

eUroPean Union, http://europa.eu/legislation_sum- maries/employment_and_social_policy/antidiscrimi-nation_relations_with_civil_society/l33501_en.htm (last visited April 6, 2013).

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, April 11, 1950.

The Council of Europe, a death penalty free area, CoUnCil of eUroPe, http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/death-penalty (last visited April 8, 2013).

Death Penalty Abolition Worldwide, a^mneSty i^nternatio

-nal, http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/de- ath-penalty/international-death-penalty/death-penalty-statistics-2010 (last visited April 8, 2013).

Death Penalty Archive, delegation of tHe eUroPean

Union to tHe United StateS, http://www.euintheus.

org/what-we-do/policy-areas/democracy-and-human-rights/torture-and-capital-punishment/death-penalty/

(last visited April 8, 2013).

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, e^UroPean C^ommiS

-Sion, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/

charter/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

EU Policy on Death Penalty, e^UroPean Union external

aCtion, http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/adp/in-dex_en.htm (last visited April 8, 2013).

The European Atomic Energy Community Treaty, March 25, 1957.

The European Council-an official institution of the EU, e^U

-roPean CoUnCil, http://www.european-council.euro-pa.eu/the-institution.aspx?lang=en (last visited April 8, 2013).

The European Economic Community Treaty, March 25, 1957.

eUroPean Union external aCtion, a gUide for

ameriCanS: tHe eUroPean Union, 4 (2012) http://

www.euintheus.org/resources-learning/eu-guide-for-americans/.

Executions in the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File, d^eatH P^enalty i^nformation C^enter (March 12, 2013), http://

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ESPYyear.pdf.

Frederick C. Millett, Will the United States Follow England

HILL, Katie R . United States and European Union approaches to the death penalty: America should consider a new perspective. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 10, n. 2, 2013 p. 154-167 166

(and the Rest of the World) in Abandoning Capital Puni-shment?, 6 P^ierCe l. r^ev. 547, 644 (2008).

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Gordon Barclay & Cynthia Tavares, International com-parisons of criminal justice statistics 2000, Table 1.1 (2002) http://www.iprt.ie/files/international/international_

comparisons_of_criminal_justice_statistics_2000.pdf.

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 227 (1976).

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Guido Bohsem, Europe to Ban Sale of Vital Lethal Injection Drug to U.S., time.^Com (Dec. 15, 2011) http://www.

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2102266,00.html.

Harold Hongju Koh, Paying “Decent Respect” to World Opi-nion on the Death Penalty, 35 U.C. d^aviS l. r^ev. 1085, 1103 (2002).

History of Delegation, delegation of tHe eUroPean

Union to tHe United StateS, http://www.euintheus.

org/who-we-are/history-of-the-delegation/ (last visi-ted April 8, 2013).

The history of the European Union, 1945-1959, http://

europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

The history of the European Union, 1960-1969, http://

europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

The history of the European Union, 1970-1979, http://

europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

The history of the European Union, 1980-1989, http://

europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966.

Jackson v. Georgia, 171 S.E.2d 501 (Ga. 1969).

Jurisdictions with no recent executions, d^eatH P^enalty iⁿ

-formation C^enter (March 12, 2013), http://www.de-athpenaltyinfo.org/jurisdictions-no-recent-executions.

Marylin J. Raisch, Treaties Establishing the European Union, ameriCan SoCiety of international law, http://

www.asil.org/erg/?page=eu#id.70mqtqmqxhqd (last visited April 8, 2013).

McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971).

Member countries of the European Union, o^ffiCial w^eBSite

for tHe e^UroPean U^nion, http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/ (last visited April 8, 2013).

Newton M. Curtis, The Death Penalty Undesirable and Not Sustained by Divine Authority, reprinted in Voices Against Death 143 (Phillip English Mackey, ed., 1976).

o^ffiCial w^{eBSite for tHe} e^UroPean U^nion, http://

europa.eu/index_en.htm (last visited April 8, 2013).

Ordinary legislative procedure, eUroPean Parliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/

en/0080a6d3d8/Ordinary-legislative-procedure.html (last visited April 8, 2013).

Organisation and work, e^UroPean P^arliament, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/

en/0025729351/Organisation-and-work.html (last visi-ted April 8, 2013).

Rebecca Trail, The Future of Capital Punishment in the Uni-ted States: Effects of the International Trend Towards Abo-lition of the Death Penalty, 26 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev.

105, 105 (2002).

Senate Bill 19 to Repeal the Death Penalty Introdu-ced, American Civil Liberties Union (March 12, 2013), http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/senate-bill-19-repeal-death-penalty-introduced.

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541(1942).

States With and Without the Death Penalty, d^eatH P^enalty i^nformation C^enter (March 12, 2013), http://www.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty.

StUart Banner, deatH Penalty: an ameriCan HiSto

-ry 5 (Harvard University Press 2003). This enumerated list included treason, willful murder, piracy, forgery, rob-bery, and rape.

Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

U.S. C^onSt. amend. I U.S. ConSt. amend. V.

U.S. C^onSt. amend VI U.S. ConSt. amend. VIII U.S. ConSt. amend. XIII U.S. ConSt. amend. XIV, sec. 1

HILL, Katie R . United States and European Union approaches to the death penalty: America should consider a new perspective. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 10, n. 2, 2013 p. 154-167 167

US Response to EU Statement at Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, d^{elegationoftHe} e^UroPean U^{nion to tHe} U^nited S^tateS, http://www.euintheus.

org/what-we-do/policy-areas/democracy-and-human-rights/torture-and-capital-punishment/death-penalty/

death-penalty-archive-2011/ (last visited April 6, 2013).

United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968).

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).

Tudo de novo no front:

MONUSCO, uma nova era nas peacekeeping operations?

All new on the frontline:

MONUSCO, a new era in peacekeeping operations?

Priscila Fett

doi: 10.5102/rdi.v10i2.2720

Tudo de novo no front: MONUSCO, uma nova era nas peacekeeping operations?

All new on the frontline: MONUSCO, a new era in peacekeeping operations?*

Priscila Fett**

r

^esumo

A Resolução 2.098 do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, de 28 de março de 2013, autorizou, de forma inédita, a criação de uma Brigada de Intervenção para atuar na República Democrática do Congo como parte integrante da MONUSCO – missão de paz em andamento no país desde 1999. Entretanto, o referido documento ressalta que a inovação trazida em seu bojo não deve abrir um precedente no universo das operações de ma-nutenção da paz da ONU. O presente artigo tem por finalidade suscitar os pontos controversos identificados na citada resolução e verificar se será possível impedir a tomada de novos rumos pelas peacekeeping operations, como desejado pelo órgão de cúpula da Organização. Para tanto, faz-se uma breve contextualização da presença da ONU no país, para na sequência analisar o conteúdo da resolução e os pontos relevantes para o debate proposto, pas-sando à conclusão do artigo.

Palavras-chave: Brigada de Intervenção. MONUSCO. ONU.

A

bstrAct

United Nations Security Council 2098 Resolution, March 28, 2013, au-thorized in an unprecedented manner, the creation of an Intervention Bri-gade to serve in the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of MONUSCO – peacekeeping mission in progress in the country since 1999. However, the document emphasizes that the referred innovation should not set a pre-cedent in the world of UN peacekeeping operations. This article aims to raise controversial points identified in that resolution and verify if it will be possible to prevent new paths for the peacekeeping operations, as desired by the Council. Therefore, a brief contextualization of the UN presence in the country will be made, to further analyze the content of the resolution and the points relevant to the proposed debate, following to the conclusion of the article.

Keywords: Intervention Brigade. MONUSCO. UN.

* Recebido em 24/07/2013 Aprovado em 30/07/2013

** Mestre em Direitos Humanos pela Facul-dade de Direito da UniversiFacul-dade de São Paulo, pesquisadora do Observatório de Direitos Humanos da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, possui cursos de extensão em Direito Internacional Humanitário pelo Institute of In-ternational Humanitarian Law, em Sanremo, Itália.

FETT, Priscila. Tudo de novo no front: Monusco, uma nova era nas peacekeeping operations?. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 10, n. 2, 2013 p. 168-192 170

1. i

^ntrodução

Por meio da Resolução 2.098, de 28 de março de 2013, os membros do Conselho de Segurança das Na-ções Unidas (CSNU) – seguindo as recomendaNa-ções fei-tas pelo Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas (SGNU) em seu relatório de 27 de fevereiro¹ – aprovaram por unanimidade a criação de uma Brigada de Intervenção (BI) para somar esforços à Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation en République Démocratique du Congo (MONUSCO), pelo período inicial de um ano.

A razão principal para que tal brigada fosse criada foi a expectativa de que ela ajudaria o governo congolês a fortalecer o controle sobre o seu território, possibi-litando às Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo (FARDC) exercer sua responsabilidade primária na segurança do país.²

A Brigada de Intervenção irá operar sob o coman-do e controle direto coman-do Force Commander (FC) da MO-NUSCO – o General brasileiro Santos Cruz – e terá como missão empreender operações ofensivas a fim de neutralizar grupos armados e desarmá-los, visando com isso impedir sua expansão na porção leste da República Democrática do Congo (RDC) e reduzir a ameaça ofe-recida às autoridades estatais e à população civil.³

Dentre os grupos armados de maior relevo atuantes em território congolês, a Resolução do CSNU destaca e condena as ações do 23 March Movement (M23), das Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDRL), da Alliance Democratic Forces (ADF), Alliance des Patriotes pour un Congo Libre et Souverain (APCLS), do Lord’s Army Re-sistance (LRA), da National Force of Liberation (FNL) e dos grupos Mayi-Mayi.⁴ Depreende-se da leitura da Resolu-ção que esses serão os grupos armados que a Brigada de Intervenção deverá enfrentar.

1 ^*Mestre em Direitos Humanos pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo, pesquisadora do Observatório de Direi-tos Humanos da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, possui cur-sos de extensão em Direito Internacional Humanitário pelo Institute of International Humanitarian Law, em Sanremo, Itália.

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Special Report of the Secretary-General on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region. UN doc. S/2013/119. 27 fev. 2013.

2 UNITED NATIONS SECURTY COUNCIL. Special Report of the Secretary-General on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region. UN doc. S/2013/119. 27 fev. 2013, parágrafo 60..

3 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Resolution 2098 (2013). UN doc. S/RES/2098. 28 mar. 2013. parágrafo 9.

4 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. Resolution 2098 (2013). UN doc. S/RES/2098. 28 mar. 2013, Parágrafo 8.

Não obstante o fato de a Resolução 2.098 ter sido aprovada por unanimidade, muitos membros do CSNU demonstraram preocupação com as implicações que a criação da Brigada de Intervenção trará no futuro. Esse documento estabeleceu que a BI será criada “on an ex-ceptional basis and without creating a precedent or any prejudice to the agreed principles of peacekeeping” (grifo nosso). Entre-tanto, como bem asseverou o representante do Reino Unido presente à reunião, Mark Grant, “Council and the United Nations had entered new territory”.⁵

Gert Rosenthal, representante da Guatemala, ressal-tou que a criação e a atuação da BI suscitariam ques-tões conceituais, legais e operacionais relacionadas ao alcance das ações a serem adotadas pela brigada, uma vez não terem sido bem exploradas e esclarecidas pela Resolução do CSNU.⁶

Em função das discussões propiciadas no âmbito do Conselho de Segurança e do novo horizonte que se descortina para as operações de manutenção da paz da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), o presente ar-tigo tem por finalidade levantar os possíveis pontos de inflexão no tocante às dificuldades conceituais, legais e operacionais a serem enfrentadas pela MONUSCO, e verificar, ao fim, se a ideia frisada pelo CSNU de que a Resolução não abre um precedente no universo das peacekeeping operations é pertinente ou não.

Para tanto, incialmente será feita uma breve contex-tualização da presença da MONUSCO na RDC para, na sequência, analisar o conteúdo da Resolução 2.098 do CSNU que criou a BI. Feita tal análise, serão apontados e debatidos os pontos controversos referentes à nova força, para então concluir se as novidades trazidas pelo Conselho de Segurança em março de 2013 influenciarão ou não, de forma determinante, as futuras missões de paz da ONU.

No documento Revista de Direito Internacional, v. 10, n. 2 (edição completa) (páginas 180-186)