The overarching focus on the United Nations and its agents for human rights violations and abuses they may have committed, as well as the attention to troop contributing states and even ‘victims’, has broadly shifted attention away from the role of the host state in peace operation. This article seeks to unpack that omission and suggests that it is far more problematic than commonly thought, in particular because it tends to reproduce some of the problematic features of the political economy of peacekeeping that are the background of rights abuses in the first place. Instead, as part of a tradition of thinking of human rights in terms of sovereign protection, the article makes the case for taking much more seriously the role that the host state can and should have in order to address abuses by international organizations. It emphasises how international legal discourse has tended to ‘give up’ on the host state, but also how host states have themselves been problematically quiescent about violations occurring on their territory. This has forced victims to take the improbable route of seeking to hold the UN accountable directly, bereft of the sort of legal and political mediation which one would normally expect their sovereign to provide. The article contributes some thoughts as to why host states have not taken up their citizens’ cause more forcefully with the United Nations, including governmental weakness, a domestic culture of rights neglect, but also host state dependency on peace operations. The article then suggests some leads to rethink the role of the host state in such circumstances. It points out relevant avenues under international law as well as specifically under international human rights law, drawing on the literature developed to theorise the responsibilities of states in relation to private third-party non-state actors within their jurisdiction. It argues that there is no reason why the arguments developed with private actors, notably corporations, in mind could not be applied to public actors such as the UN. Finally, the article suggests some concrete ways in which the host state could more vigorously take up the cause of rights abuses against international organizations including by requiring the setting up of standing claims commissions or making more use of its consent to peace operations, as well as ways in which it could be forced to do so through domestic law recourses. The article concludes by suggesting that reinstating the host state within what should be its natural prerogatives will not only be a better way of dealing with UN abuses, but also more conducive to the goals of peacekeeping and state construction.

对联合国及其代理人可能会犯下的侵犯人权和虐待行为的总体关注，以及对部队派遣国甚至“受害者”的关注，已使人们的注意力从东道国在和平中的作用大为转移手术。本文力图消除这一遗漏，并提出它比通常认为的问题要严重得多，特别是因为它往往会重现维和政治经济学中的一些有问题的特征，这些特征首先是权利滥用的背景。取而代之的是，作为从主权保护角度考虑人权的传统的一部分，该条提出了理由，更加认真地对待东道国为应对国际组织的滥用而应有的和应有的作用。它强调了国际法律话语如何趋向于“放弃”东道国，但也强调了东道国本身对在其领土上发生的侵权行为有疑问地处于静止状态。这迫使受害者采取不可能的途径，寻求直接追究联合国的责任，而放弃了人们通常希望其主权者提供的那种法律和政治调解。这篇文章提出了一些关于为什么东道国没有在联合国更加强有力地处理其公民事业的想法，包括政府的软弱，国内权利文化的忽视，还包括东道国对和平行动的依赖。然后，文章提出了一些线索，以重新考虑东道国在这种情况下的作用。它指出了根据国际法，特别是根据国际人权法的有关途径，并借鉴了为理论化国家在其管辖范围内对私人第三方非国家行为者的责任而进行理论研究的文献。它认为，没有理由不能将考虑到私人行为者（尤其是公司）的观点不适用于联合国等公共行为者。最后，该文章提出了一些具体的方式，使东道国可以更积极地处理对国际组织的权利滥用的原因，包括要求成立常任理事国委员会或更多地利用其对和平行动的同意，以及通过国内法律手段被迫这样做的方式。