LAUSR

International Affairs 93: 2 (2017) 365–387; doi: 10.1093/ia/iix001 © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of International Affairs. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] In 2013, a UN investigation declared sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) ‘the most significant risk to UN peacekeeping missions, above and beyond other key risks including protection of civilians’.1 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself asserted that ‘a single substantiated case of [SEA] involving UN personnel is one case too many’.2 Yet civilian and military personnel associated with peacekeeping operations (PKOs) continue to perpetrate SEA, despite the development of policy frameworks designed to prevent it and hold perpetrators accountable. SEA by interveners has been addressed largely as an issue of principle: when peacekeepers abuse local populations they undermine the principles that underpin their deployment. A 2015 independent review of SEA perpetrated by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic (CAR) asserted that ‘when peacekeepers exploit the vulnerability of the people they have been sent to protect, it is a fundamental betrayal of trust. When the international community fails to care for the victims or to hold the perpetrators to account, that betrayal is compounded.’3 Responses have centred on calling for peacekeepers and aid workers to better uphold UN principles, and policies have focused on pre-deployment training and accountability mechanisms within PKOs, but these have not reduced the incidence of SEA. This article investigates the phenomenon of SEA by interveners (including personnel affiliated with the UN and NGOs, and others associated with PKOs) and policy responses undertaken by the UN, states and NGOs. We begin with an investigation of SEA by interveners. After a brief review of what we know of the phenomenon from the early 1990s onwards, we develop an analysis of the distinguishing features of the dominant forms of SEA, drawing on survivor testimony. We argue that the use of the umbrella term ‘SEA’, while helpful in distinguishing