The Use of Force for Mission Accomplishment: A Pitfall in Contemporary Operations?

Multinational operations are increasingly tasked with carrying out complex missions in volatile situations in which they face significant threats that can severely jeopardise the successful accomplishment of the mission. This article addresses two questions which arise in such situations. To begin with, it is often unclear to what extent these operations can use (potentially lethal) force to accomplish the mission. To formulate a response, this article maps the existing legal framework regarding the conditions for the use of force for the accomplishment of the mission. It concludes that human rights law and international humanitarian law allow for considerable leeway for the use of force to accomplish a mission in the conduct of hostilities. In situations which have no nexus with an armed conflict, the human rights law framework, however, significantly restricts the use of force which is (potentially) lethal in nature. These findings give rise to the second question, namely whether the law as it is still provides for enough margin to effectively govern contemporary conflicts or whether a new legal framework should be developed to fill the gap. This article argues that human rights law indeed appears to be less adapted to govern such situations that have no clear nexus with an armed conflict or that take place outside an armed conflict. However, after considering different options to effectively address the issues at stake, this article concludes that the best way forward is to accept the existing legal framework and the strict limits it imposes upon the use of force for mission accomplishment, while simultaneously exploring the use of possible non-lethal means.status: publishe