Interstate border disputes in Africa: Their resolution and implications for human rights and peace

Many researchers have focused on the role colonialism has played in causing interstate border disputes in Africa. Besides the colonial issue, this paper seeks to investigate what other factors fuel interstate border disputes in Africa and determine how effectively the disputes can be resolved. In recent decades, Africa has been tormented by and is still experiencing numerous interstate border disputes which have serious implications for the disputing states. Some of the disputes are resolved, but violations of human rights and instability still occur in these regions. By analysing the content of some relevant documents and with the use of interviews, this paper reveals that most disputing African states rely heavily on foreign intervention (especially by their erstwhile colonial masters) in the resolution of their disputes. It is argued that African leaders need to be more committed and exhibit better leadership in resolving their border disputes, and that they should always seek the expertise of African forums such as the African Union (AU) before calling for foreign intervention. It is suggested that African leaders and the AU understand the problems of Africans better than anyone else, and they are also the ones mostly greatly affected by these disputes. Thus, there needs to be more of a focus on addressing the root causes of disputes in order to avoid them resurfacing, rather than seeking to merely halt them.     

Political dynamics in Kenya’s post-electoral violence: Justice without peace or political compromise?

The political upheavals that erupted in Kenya after the release of the 2007–8 election results resulted in the death of approximately 1 200 people, as well as the loss of livestock and other valuable property. While the Kenyan government tried to seek solutions to the crisis, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued warrants for the arrest of top government officials. For its part, the African Union (AU) accused the ICC of racism by targeting only African leaders, and maintained that such practices undermine the rule of equality before the law set forth in Article 27 of the Rome Statute. The AU is therefore advising African countries, including Kenya, to consider withdrawing from the ICC. Will the ICC's intervention into the situation in Kenya bring justice and peace to the country, or will it add to the existing injuries affecting not just the country but the region as well? Through a critical analysis of contemporary scholarly discourse, this article unravels the dilemma of the ICC's intervention and the likely consequences of this action for the people of Kenya and Africa.     

THE AFRICAN STANDBY FORCE

The African Union is preparing for its enhanced role in the maintenance of peace and security by establishing a Peace and Security Council that is tasked with identifying threats and breaches of the peace. To this end, the AU has recommended the development of a common security policy and, by 2010, the establishment of an African Standby Force capable of rapid deployment to keep, or enforce, the peace. The ASF would comprise of standby brigades in each of the five regions, and incorporate a police and civilian expert capacity. G8 leaders have pledged support for the AU proposal through funding, training, and enhanced co-ordination of activities. For its part, the AU will need to undertake a realistic assessment of member capabilities, to clearly articulate its needs, and to set realistic and achievable goals. The latest plan for establishing a rapidly deployable African peacekeeping force will require something that similar proposals have lacked: the political will to fund and implement a long list of recommendations. Success will ultimately be judged by the AU's future responses to situations of armed conflict. Even if such responses are largely symbolic in the short term, a sufficient display of political will among African leaders could inspire the confidence needed to galvanise international support.     

REFLECTIONS ON THE INTEGRATION OF THE MILITARY IN SOUTH AFRICA

This paper explores the contribution of the African Union (AU) to human security promotion in Africa. It contends that human security concerns informed the formation of the AU. Through the efforts of the AU Commission, the African ruling elite and policy-makers have become aware of human security doctrines. Human security ideas have been integrated into AU binding agreements, declarations, decisions and policies. The commission is now in the difficult, yet most important, phase of trying to persuade significant numbers of the African ruling elite and civil society to accept human security as a guiding principle and the desirable norm. Through the African Citizens' Directorate (CIDO), the commission is using indigenous African civil society groups to institutionalise human security doctrines in Africa. The commission faces serious challenges in its efforts to make human security the only security norm. While member states of the AU that have never been comfortable with the introduction of human security doctrines into the continental integration project are tacitly undermining the CIDO's ability to work with civil society groups to institutionalise the doctrines in Africa, the leaders who enthusiastically supported the integration of human security doctrines into the documents and work of the AU have seemed in recent times to be less resolute in their support of AU Commission's human security work.     

From stopping to preventing atrocities

The Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU) provides for the right of the continental body to intervene in the face of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. According to its formulation, Article 4(h) intervention entails military force, which is triggered when a target state fails to discharge its duty to protect its population from mass atrocities. Although Article 4(h) is an ambitious statutory commitment to intervene in a member state by the AU, the Libyan crisis in 2011 showed the ambivalence of the continental institution to act in a decisive and timely manner. The AU's failure to invoke Article 4(h) exposed the need for building the capacity and political will to intervene and to interpret Article 4(h). Therefore, the primary focus of this article is on how Article 4(h) should be interpreted. Flowing from the Pretoria Principles, which seek to provide clarity on the implementation of the AU's right of intervention, Article 4(h) should be viewed as a duty rather than a right to prevent or stop mass atrocities. The duty dimension of Article 4(h) derives from the international instruments that AU member states have ratified to prevent mass atrocities. Rather than being a paper tiger, Article 4(h) should be used in a proactive and timely manner as a military option available to the AU to persuade member states to prevent or halt atrocities. As a last resort, military force pursuant to Article 4(h) should aim at protecting the population at risk and pursuing the perpetrators in order to avoid contravening Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Although military intervention can save lives in the short term, it cannot necessarily address the underlying, structural causes of atrocities, such as ethnic rivalries, economic inequalities and scramble for natural resources, among others. Therefore, the prevention of mass atrocities should not be equated with, or be seen through the prism of, Article 4(h) intervention alone. The focus should instead be on the entire spectrum of preventive strategies at the disposal of the AU in the face of mass atrocities, including the African human rights system and the African Peer Review Mechanism.     

Human Security and the State in Africa

The most recent major document on human security tells us more about the ideal of human security than how this worthy objective can best be achieved. This is a problem because most African states were created to serve as a bulwark against further colonial rule rather than provide domestic order and protection for their citizens. Many African states have since become battlegrounds for ethnic or economic struggles. Neither a new and committed African leadership, nor intervention by the international community, is likely to transcend this problem and effectively advance the human security agenda. A reformed African state—one which induces leaders to be more concerned with advancing the interests of their people more broadly—remains the only viable alternative. The problem is that any reform of African states will also involve difficult trade-offs and dilemmas.     

EASTERN SUDAN INDIGENOUS CONFLICT PREVENTION,MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION MECHANISMS

In the wake of heightened media and political pressure about the Darfur humanitarian catastrophe, the African Union (AU) hurriedly deployed its monitors in Darfur, to be augmented later by a protection force to safeguard the monitors, albeit without adequate pre-deployment and logistic assessment. Without doubt, the Darfur crisis has become the AU's major preoccupation for the past year. The deployment of the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS) since June 2004 has presented many challenges to the AU and its partners. A restrictive mandate, inadequate troops to cover Darfur, serious operational, logistical and capacity shortfalls have combined in an inextricable way to present the AU's mission to some observers as spineless and ineffective. The UN and partners have acknowledged the lead role of the AU in Darfur, and have been very supportive with assistance in these critical deficient areas. How the AU will take advantage of this favourable environment and optimise the benefits from its partners will be crucial to its success in Darfur. The article emphasises the need for the AU to strengthen its capacity and expertise at all levels of command through technical cooperation and appropriate assistance from the UN and partners. The entire world is waiting to see how Africa delivers on this critical assignment.     

ECOSOCC

Provision for an Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) among the new organs of the African Union (AU) offers to bridge the distance between African governments and their peoples. Designed and implemented correctly, the Council could be an influential forum for the diverse voices of civil society. Greater popular involvement in government is a prerequisite for stability on the continent—particularly since governance is often weak, corruption endemic and democracy in a number of countries little more than a façade.

The essay considers comparative institutions at national, regional and international levels as examples of how ECOSOCC could work. We argue that its structure will have to take account of the varying strengths and weaknesses of social and economic actors in different parts of Africa, and between those from AU countries and other regions of the world. Ultimately, success depends on whether African civil society is ready and able to take the lead in this initiative. The paper concludes with a number of recommendations.     

African maritime security and the Lomé Charter: Reality or dream?

ABSTRACT

Traditionally the African concept of security concept has been dominated by land-based conflicts with little attention being paid to maritime threats and the protection of the maritime environment. With the rapid escalation of piracy on the East Coast, the African Union (AU) was compelled to develop a joint strategy to address its changing African Maritime Domain (AMD). This was achieved by the AU’s Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy (AIMS 2050) in 2014, culminating in the adoption of a binding maritime security and safety charter in Lomé in 2016. The Lomé Charter should ideally focus the general provisions of AIMS 2050 so that Africa, as a continent, can take responsibility for security and economic empowerment of the AMD. This article considers various maritime security documents against the backdrop of an African context for understanding maritime security, in order to evaluate whether the Lomé Charter, as a manifestation of AIMS 2050, will realise its aspirations. Focussing on security is not sufficient and too much emphasis is placed in the Lomé Charter on restriction rather than development. Strong political will and leadership is required to facilitate implementation, identifying common security concerns to ensure better cooperative and collective strategies in a diverse implementation environment.     

Beyond the state: reconceptualising African security in the 21st century

Confronted with myriad security challenges, African states and the much-vaunted peace and security architecture of the African Union (AU) has proven not to be up to the challenge. Indeed, this is implicitly acknowledged by the AU itself if one considers the creation of such security structures as the African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), which exists outside its peace and security architecture. This paper argues for a radical rethink of security structures on the African continent – one in which state structures of security coexist with newer forms of security actors, including private military companies (PMCs), community movements and the business sector. Whilst this shift in security actors is already happening on the ground, policymakers need to embrace this new reality.     

Peace enforcement in Africa: Doctrinal distinctions between the African Union and United Nations

When the United Nations (UN) Security Council needs to authorize a peace enforcement operation in Africa, its partner of choice is the African Union (AU). Africa has developed significant peace operations capacity over the past decade. In addition to deploying eight AU operations, Africa now contributes 50% of all UN peacekeepers. African stability operations, like its mission in Somalia, are often described as peace enforcement operations. In this article, I question whether it is accurate to categorize African stability operations as peace enforcement? I answer the question by considering what the criteria are that are used to differentiate between peace enforcement and peacekeeping operations in the UN context. I then use the peace enforcement criteria to assess whether AU stabilization operations would qualify as peace enforcement operations. In conclusion, I consider the implications of the findings for the strategic partnership between the AU and the UN.     

FROM RIGHTS TO RESPONSIBILITIES

This article aims to explore possible avenues that the international community can use in order to justify forcible intervention in sovereign states in cases where gross and systematic violations of the human rights of the he population take place, but where the legal authority for such intervention is not forthcoming from the Uni ted Nations Security Council. Two possible justifications are identified: the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which despite being controversial, enjoys a measure of acceptance due to the practice of states in this regard, and the notion of an international responsibility to protect vulnerable populations and individuals. The latter option, despite a vague and uncertain legal basis, offers several advantages: it focuses on the suffering of human beings and not on the rights of states, it enumerates clear and definable thresholds for intervention by the international community and acknowledges that intervention is only one step in the process of achieving peace, to be preceded by preventive action and followed by post-conflict reconstruction. It is submit ted that elements of the notion of an international “responsibility to protect” are to be found in the Constitutive Act of the African Union and especially the Protocol on the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council. Furthermore, the principles underlying this notion, as developed by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty may serve as guidelines in decisions by the Assembly to authorise interventions in AU members.     

The African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis: conceptual breakthrough or anti-imperialist phantom?

The creation of an African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crisis (ACIRC) is a sign of Africa's willingness to take its destiny into its own hands. Presented as a reaction to the slowness of the development of the African Standby Force (ASF), it is also a response to some of the ASF's conceptual weaknesses. This decision reflects a wish to establish an instrument better equipped to deal with the challenges Africa is facing. Departing from the (sub)regional logic of the ASF results from a desire to take into account the transnational nature of threats, while its enlarged mandate is meant to offer Africa the capacity to intervene in all kinds of conflicts, including by undertaking peace enforcement activities. But the obstacles on the road towards the actual creation and mobilisation of this capacity should not be underestimated. These include material difficulties, but also political tensions, between ‘small’ and ‘big’ states as well as between the African Union and subregional organisations. The risk then is high that the ACIRC, whose announcement came as a reaction to France's intervention in Mali, ends up joining the ranks of the many ‘anti-imperialist’ phantoms haunting the history of the Organization of African Unity/African Union (OAU/AU). Confronted by events considered ‘neocolonial’ initiatives, African actors have indeed traditionally reacted by launching grand projects that never got off the ground. However, by actually establishing this new instrument, they may also demonstrate that times have definitively changed.     

THE PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT

Founded on the basis of the 1991 Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community that came into force in May 1994, the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) was inaugurated in Addis Ababa on 18 March 2004. The inauguration followed the ratification by a majority of the 53 African Union (AU) member states of the PAP Protocol that had come into force on 14 December 2003.

While it is suggested that the PAP will oversee the AU Executive once the continental parliament has been given legislative power in its second term, the debate on the role that the PAP should play continues to rage. This article enters the debate by giving an overview of the workings of the PAP and makes some concrete proposals on ways in which the continental parliament can contribute to the continent. The article underlines the need for the PAP to develop or seek the capacity to conduct or commission research on pertinent issues for further recommendation to the assembly. It proposes that the continental parliament should send observer missions to countries holding elections on the continent so that it may contribute to the entrenchment of democracy on the continent.

The article also identifies some of the challenges that lie ahead of the continental body, including funding as well as the challenge of maximising the participation of ordinary Africans.     

BENCHMARKS AND INDICATORS TOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

In addition to the South African King Report, there has been a rapid growth in the development of African thinking on corporate governance. In a period in which the private sector is accepted as the motor for growth, good corporate governance is an essential lever for development and social justice. As the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) recognises, the link with economic and political governance criteria is critical. New thinking is to attack on the supply side of corruption (company bribes) by complementary anti-corruption measures by the state. The recent initiative of the African Union (AU) to develop an AU Convention on Combating Corruption addresses the importance of declaring public officials' assets, and also breaks ground by targeting unfair and unethical practices in the private sector.     

APPRAISING REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Since achieving political independence African countries have been involved in policies of regional co-operation and integration. Africa's leaders see regional integration as a way to harness resources collectively, to penetrate global markets and to attract foreign direct investment. The experience of African undertaking suggests, however, that regional co-operation has faced many obstacles and that co-operation arrangements in future will not be easy. Importantly, regional co-operation in Southern Africa raises issues of loyalties, resource availability, duplication of efforts and competition. Added to this is the aspect of globalisation, which is creating new economic challenges as well as new opportunities for regional integration.     

Assessing the role of the African Union in preventing and combating terrorism in Africa

The period after 9/11 can be characterised as the terrorism moment in world history. Every actor in international relations—the state, regional, continental and international as well as civil society organisations—has been mobilised to combat what, apparently has been conceived as a common security threat to humanity. The transformation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU) was a divine coincidence at a time when multilateralism and international cooperation were being challenged by the threat of terrorism. In the post-9/11 period, the main concern of the Union has been to reinforce and implement existing counter-terrorism instruments adopted at the continental level in coordination with states and regional organisations. This article discusses and appraises the endeavours undertaken by the AU and its precursor organisation, the OAU, in tackling and dealing with the threat of terrorism despite limitations to its human and financial resources. In recognition of the nature of the states in Africa and the challenges facing the Union, we argue that the role of the AU remains critical in order to fill the gaps where its member states or regional mechanisms are lacking. In this regard, we stress that the role of the AU should be complementary and serve as an interface between the continent and the international community, including the United Nations.     

‘Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies

Despite its many institutional and political weaknesses and limitations, the African Union (AU) has been developing a variety of tools and mechanisms to respond effectively to complex disasters and emergencies (both natural and manmade) by building up a comprehensive regional security architecture. Furthermore, it has become the first and only regional or international organisation to enshrine the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) in its Constitutive Act. This regional approach to and formal endorsement of the R2P principle allowed it to assume a particular place in the promotion of peace and security in its area. This article aims to critically assess the effectiveness of the AU on the African continent by exploring its real capacity in preventing and responding to emergencies and violent conflicts, and therefore in rendering the principle of R2P operational. The article argues that the formalisation of principles does not necessarily mean their effective implementation. The organisation's use of the R2P principle is also greatly conditioned by internal and external factors.     

Trading coups for civil war

This paper investigates civil conflict as a product of the survival strategies of African leaders. Specifically, the paper offers a theory of risk substitution that predicts coup-fearing leaders will undermine the military effectiveness of the state when making an effort to extend their own tenure. While ‘coup-proofing’ practices have often been noted as contributors to political survival, considerably less attention has been paid to the influence of these strategies on other forms of conflict. Utilising data from a number of cross-national datasets, the analyses show that having a higher number of ‘coup-proofing’ counterweights significantly worsens a state's civil conflict prospects. A brief consideration of multiple episodes of conflict further suggests that in addition to coup-proofing undermining the counterinsurgency capacity of the state, some leaders are simply indifferent to – or can even potentially benefit from – the existence of an insurgency.     

The misguided and mismanaged intervention in Libya: Consequences for peace

In this paper, I critically analyse the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), as it relates to the responsibility of intervening forces towards the people they claim to protect and the challenges that the situation in Libya now poses in the region and for the African Union (AU). I focus most of my attention on the coercive elements of the RtoP framework (Pillar III). This is the most contested element in the framework. Three questions guide this article: were there legitimate grounds to justify an external intervention in Libya? In the words of Hugh Roberts in Who Said Gaddafi Had to Go, ‘[w]hat if anything has Libya got in exchange for all the death and destruction that have been visited on it’ since 2011? What are the practical implications and consequences of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention, led by the United States (US), for regional peace? I discuss the problems surrounding the US–NATO intervention, followed by an analysis of the various positions and narratives leading up to the intervention, the framing and justifications provided for the intervention, and an analysis of the AU's proposal for the resolution of the Libyan crisis. I analyse the various debates that took place in the US (Pentagon/White House), at the United Nations, among scholars in the West and in Africa, and among various actors who tried to broker a ceasefire in Libya before and during the intervention. I conclude with a discussion of the implications for regional peace.