4 Regional Peacekeeping and Enforcement Actions

Chapter VIII (Articles 52–54): regional arrangements' constitutional home — settlement through regional agencies before the Council (52); and the crucial rule — regional enforcement action requires Security Council authorization (Article 53): the regional organizations's peacekeeping-and-humanitarian latitude vs. the Council's enforcement monopoly. The practice: 1. The African experience: ECOWAS's interventions (Liberia, Sierra Leone — the ex post authorization pattern's origin) and the AU's peace operations' architecture (Somalia's AMISOM — the Council-authorized regional enforcement's biggest case); 2. The others: the OSCE's monitoring tradition; ASEAN's non-interference culture; the Gulf Cooperation Council's Bahrain invitation-deployment; the Organization of American States' democracy-defence instruments (the Inter-American Democratic Charter); 3. South Asia's silence: SAARC's Charter's exclusion of bilateral and contentious issues — the region's non-intervention orthodoxy — no regional enforcement capacity by design (the comparative note the Nepali answer owes: SAARC vs. the African model); 4. UN peacekeeping vs. enforcement (the distinction to state): peacekeeping's trinity — consent of the parties, impartiality, non-use of force except self-defence/defence of the mandate (the Brahimi-era's evolution) — vs. enforcement's combat authorization (Chapter VII): the blue helmets and the war-fighters; Nepal as the peacekeeping state (IRD Unit 4's record — the doctrine's consensual face being Nepal's international signature); the hybrid operations (the UN-AU frameworks); and the enforcement-by-sanctions' regional practice (the Council's delegated monitoring).