Peace Keeping in Demonstrations and Public Disorder Situations

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Aug 1, 2013 Egypt
[Logo of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). Image from eipr.org] [Logo of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). Image from eipr.org]

Peace Keeping in Demonstrations and Public Disorder Situations

By : Jadaliyya Reports

[The following statement was recently released by the Egyptian Initiatve for Personal Rights (EIPR)]

Peace Keeping in Demonstrations and Public Disorder Situations

In every clash between demonstrators and security forces since the January revolution, the security forces involved in the violence, whether they were police or army, justified the killing and injuring of demonstrators with excuses such as: that the demonstrators were the ones who started the violence, that the security forces used only legitimate means to defend public property and defend themselves, or that the killings were not carried out by the security forces themselves, but by third parties. To date, not one single army or police officer has been prosecuted for the deaths and injuries of demonstrators since February. A number of investigations have allegedly been set up, the results of which – if they have indeed been conducted – have not been made public. 

The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) has, and will continue to, collect evidence proving that these excuses are largely a manipulation of the truth, and a failure to prosecute any wrongdoing on behalf of the security forces. The EIPR also maintains that, even if the scenarios presented by the authorities were completely true, the type of force used and the level of force used would be illegal and constitute criminal offenses under national and international law. This holds true for the `Majlis el Shaab` clashes in December, which resulted in the death of 17 protesters so far, for the `Mohamed Mahmoud street` clashes in November, which resulted in the death of 45 protesters, for the `Maspero massacre` in October which resulted in the death of 28 protesters, and for other events before them.

The following is a brief of the international rules applicable in managing demonstrations and public disorder. It lists the circumstances in which security forces are allowed to use force and firearms, and the circumstances in which the use of force is illegal and constitutes a criminal offense.


Rules for Policing Demonstrations and Public Disorder


Policing demonstrations and managing public disorder are subject to minimum standards agreed upon internationally. These rules apply to both police and military forces carrying out police duties, and are contained in International Conventions and standards, most notably the United Nations (UN) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials  and the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.


Key Principles


The following principles dictate the security forces` conduct in securing demonstrations and in managing public disorder. Security agencies are responsible for securing demonstrations - whether planned or spontaneous  - and for securing the rights of participants and non-participants with the following understanding:



  1. Security agencies` role is to protect citizens` right to life, liberty and security.  Action by security agencies must be intended to ensure public safety, to prevent disorder or crime and to protect the rights of others. 


  2. Citizens have the rights to peaceful assembly and demonstration.
  3. Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.  Use of force and firearms by law enforcement officers should be:
    1. Proportionate, to the lawful objective to be achieved and to the seriousness of the offense;
    2. Lawful, which means it must conform to the national laws and regulations as well as to international standards;


    3. Necessary, which means that force and firearms should be used only when other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result,  and only to the extend required; 


    4. Accountable, which means that procedures should be in place to report any use of firearms and any death or serious injury resulting from the use of force. Internal review should follow the reporting to ensure the use of force was legitimate. It also means that both the officer giving orders to use illegal force and those obeying the order are criminally liable.
  4. In all cases, firearms – birdshots, rubber bullets and live ammunition - shall not be used against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. 
Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officers shall minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life.
  5. Intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. 


What these Principles Mean in Practice


If the Demonstration Is Peaceful But Unlawful



If the protest is unlawful but peaceful, security forces should avoid any use force in dispersing it, or, where that is not practicable, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary.  

This means that security agencies should first negotiate with demonstrators. If negotiations fail to disperse the demonstration, the security forces should then warn that they will be using force if the demonstrators don`t disperse. If this does not work, they may start using the least extreme means available, such as water cannons. Only if these fail to disperse demonstrators, then security agencies may use non-lethal incapacitating weapons, such as tear gas.   

In all cases, the use of force should be proportionate to the aim, and minimize damage and injury. For example, if a group of 20 demonstrators are holding a sit-in in a public garden, it is disproportionate to use tear gas to disperse them. 

The use of firearms to disperse a peaceful demonstration is illegal.



If Protesters Are Using Violence



If people amongst the protesters use force, for example throwing stones or molotov cocktails at security forces, law enforcement officers may use force only to the extent necessary, while minimizing damage and injury.
  
Security response should also discriminate between those protesters using violence and peaceful protesters, and seek to isolate those using violence while protecting peaceful demonstrators.  In any case, using indiscriminate force against anyone present in the area where the violence is taking place is illegal. 

If the violence used by demonstrators does not constitute a threat for death or serious injury, firearms may not be used. For example, throwing stones at police officers wearing helmets and shields is illegal, yet it does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury. In responding to it, security forces may not use firearms.

Only if the level of violence used by demonstrators poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury are security forces allowed to use firearms and live ammunition, and only to the extent necessary.  

It should be noted that in cases of violence erupting, the security forces should act with the aim of preventing the situation from escalating, preventing further violence and deescalating the situation. If the use of force, even if legal and necessary, is potentially going to escalate the situation and lead to more violence and disorder, security forces should refrain from using force. Withdrawal may sometimes prevent the situation from escalating.


If Civilians Use Violence Against Demonstrators



If one or more civilian uses violence against peaceful demonstrators, then the security forces` role is to arrest those committing these crimes and prevent further violence. Therefore, the security forces have a duty to arrest any civilian using violence against a demonstration, whether by throwing stones at demonstrators or using any type of firearms. Failure to do so when it is within their reach is a breach of their duty and may constitute a criminal offense under Egyptian criminal law. 
In all cases, the security forces` role is confined to making arrests and officers should never take any punitive action against civilians.

When There Is an Attack on Public or Private Property



Security forces` role is to protect public and private property. In doing so, the same rules for the use of force and firearms apply. This means that the use of force should be lawful, necessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved. Firearms should only be used if there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury; breaking into private or public property does not, in itself, represent such a threat. 

The protection of public property can never justify the intentional use of lethal force. 


In All Cases

  • 
It is strictly forbidden for security forces to throw stones or any other items at demonstrators, even if the demonstrators are throwing stones at them. Security forces dispersing demonstrations should not under any circumstances have swords or other weapons that are not authorized by law.
  • It is strictly forbidden for security forces to use physical force against a person unless it is strictly necessary. Beating someone who is not offering resistance, who is on the ground or unconscious, or sexually assaulting someone is a criminal offense liable of imprisonment. When committed by a law enforcement officer, the penalty is aggravated.
  • It is a criminal offense for law enforcement officers to use threatening, abusive or insulting language or behavior.
  • Police action should target the person responsible for the breach of the peace. Targeting any other individuals is unlawful, including the targeting of journalists and citizens taking pictures or videos of the events.


  • It is forbidden to use non-lethal incapacitating weapons in a way that may cause death or injure uninvolved persons.  For example, birdshots and rubber bullets should not be fired directly at the upper part of protesters` bodies. Tear gas should not be excessively used and should never be used in enclosed spaces or fired directly at protesters. Use of tear gas in residential areas should be restricted.
  • Shooting live ammunition at someone`s head or chest can never be justified unless it is a situation where this person is about to kill or severely injure someone – for example pointing a loaded gun at someone, and when this is the only way to stop him or her from doing so.
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      Long Form Podcast Episode 8: Resigning the State Department Over Gaza With Hala Rharrit

      In this episode of Long Form, Hala Rharrit discusses the factors that led her to resign from the US State Department, the mechanisms by which institutional corruption and ideological commitments of officials and representatives ensure US support for Israel, and how US decision-makers consistently violate international law and US laws/legislation. Rharrit also addresses the Trump administration’s claim that South Africa is perpetrating genocide against the country’s Afrikaaner population, and how this intersects with the US-Israeli campaign of retribution against South Africa for hauling Israel before the ICJ on charges of genocide.

    • Emergency Teach-In — Israel’s Profound Existential Crisis: No Morals or Laws Left to Violate!

      Emergency Teach-In — Israel’s Profound Existential Crisis: No Morals or Laws Left to Violate!

      The entire globe stands behind Israel as it faces its most intractable existential crisis since it started its slow-motion Genocide in 1948. People of conscience the world over are in tears as Israel has completely run out of morals and laws to violate during its current faster-paced Genocide in Gaza. Israelis, state and society, feel helpless, like sitting ducks, as they search and scramble for an inkling of hope that they might find one more human value to desecrate, but, alas, their efforts remain futile. They have covered their grounds impeccably and now have to face the music. This is an emergency call for immediate global solidarity with Israel’s quest far a lot more annihilation. Please lend a helping limb.

    • Long Form Podcast Episode 7: Think Tanks and Manufactuing Consent with Mandy Turner (4 June)

      Long Form Podcast Episode 7: Think Tanks and Manufactuing Consent with Mandy Turner (4 June)

      In this episode, Mandy Turner discusses the vital role think tanks play in the policy process, and in manufacturing consent for government policy. Turner recently published a landmark study of leading Western think tanks and their positions on Israel and Palestine, tracing pronounced pro-Israel bias, where the the key role is primarily the work of senior staff within these institutions, the so-called “gatekeepers.”
Feb 16, 2011 Lebanon
Jadaliyya Reports By :
Jadaliyya Reports

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 

[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412