ABSTRACT
The inconclusive formalist debate on the constitutional basis of peacekeeping can lead to scepticism over the relevance of law to peacekeeping. A contextual approach to the law based on an understanding of the shaping and ultimate dependence of law on politics frees the international lawyer from dry and circular discussion. In this light constitutional issues about the origins and the control of peacekeeping operations are seen to be of paramount importance in the understanding and development of peacekeeping. The potentially restrictive formalist doctrine of implied powers enables the United Nations to create a wide variety of peacekeeping forces, though the creation and control of such forces is shown to be subject to the constitutional structure of the United Nations (UN). The World Court in the Expenses case clearly stated that the UN General Assembly had the power to create peacekeeping forces. The competence of the Security Council in the area of peacekeeping is much less controversial.
