International organizations (IOs) usually cooperate with national actors in order to implement global decisions and policies. This cooperation has become problematic as implementing partners have increasingly been accused of serious human rights violations. This article analyzes how implementing partners from the host state of a United Nations (UN) peace operation are held accountable. I argue that the complexity of contemporary peacekeeping limits the availability of traditional accountability mechanisms. I develop a conceptual model to demonstrate how, instead, different accountability forms interact and complement each other. I illustrate this interplay of accountability with a case study on the emergence of the UN Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (HRDDP). The accountability framework enacted by the Joint Human Rights Unit, the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court in the context of the UN peace operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo threatened the legitimacy of UN peacekeeping. As a consequence, the UN adopted the HRDDP as a new, UN-based accountability mechanism to hold implementing partners from the host state of peace operations accountable.

中文翻译：

---

与邪恶合作？和平行动中的问责制与联合国人权尽职政策的演变

国际组织通常与国家行为者合作，以执行全球决策和政策。随着越来越多的执行伙伴被指控严重侵犯人权，这种合作已成为问题。本文分析了联合国（UN）和平行动东道国的执行伙伴如何承担责任。我认为，当代维和行动的复杂性限制了传统问责机制的可用性。我开发了一个概念模型来演示不同的问责制形式如何相互作用和相互补充。我通过一个有关联合国人权尽职政策（HRDDP）出现的案例研究来说明问责制的相互作用。联合人权股制定的问责框架，联合国人权理事会和国际刑事法院的特别程序，以联合国在刚果民主共和国的和平行动为背景，威胁到联合国维持和平的合法性。结果，联合国通过了HRDDP，将其作为基于联合国的新问责机制，要求东道国和平行动的执行伙伴承担责任。