In this contribution we reflect on two recent high-stakes cases before domestic courts on state responsibility for the actions and omissions of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping forces. Both cases are the result of efforts by surviving relatives of, respectively, victims of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and victims of the Srebrenica genocide in 1995, to obtain reparation from troop-contributing states for the harm caused by UN peacekeeping troops’ failure to protect civilians. While the facts of both cases display some striking similarities, the courts reached opposite conclusions, with the Dutch Court holding the Netherlands responsible, and the Belgium Court rejecting any responsibility of the Belgium state. We critically review the two cases, and analyse in particular the approach of each court regarding attribution of conduct, paying particular attention to the specific factual circumstances of transition and withdrawal in both cases, and to the issue of attribution of legal omissions. We further present observations as to the question of shared responsibility in the context of peacekeeping operations.