Abstract:
The remedy gap in claims against UN Peacekeeping operations refers to third-party claims that cannot be adjudicated due to the UN's immunity from national jurisdictions combined with a lack of or inadequate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. As a result, valid claims are in essence extinguished due to lack of forum with jurisdiction. This study goes beyond the existing discourse which tends to focus on the two-pronged roots of the remedy gap, namely, the UN’s jurisdictional immunity and the lack of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This thesis seeks to advance the discourse by examining the underlying factors within the roots of the remedy gap. This is to determine whether the remedy gap is caused by an inappropriate implementation of the international law rules governing the obligation to provide access to remedies or whether the international law rules in the form of conventions, customary law, jurisprudence and policies contribute to the gap. This work argues that solutions to the remedy gap can be found within the existing framework and provides workable recommendations aimed at bridging the remedy gap while preserving the functional independence of the UN.
