Acquiescence and the Immunity of UN Peacekeepers; Implicit Acceptance?

In general States have not responded when faced with violations of international law
committed by United Nations (UN) peacekeepers. This article aims to explore if such
inaction, or silence, by States can be construed as legally significant. Relying upon the
concept of acquiescence within international law, this article analyses if this specific
situation can be seen as States implicitly agreeing to the UN not being bound to
provide means of redress.
This article argues that it would be difficult to consider the practice of States to
amount to acquiescence. In international legal terms, it cannot be established that this
inaction satisfies all the conditions for acquiescence for either interpretation purposes
or consent. Likewise, the host State might also not always be the relevant actor when
considering redress. These arguments ultimately make it challenging to consider the
current non-responsiveness of States to signify a form of acquiescence.