Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
References
All Topics
Political Science
Political Theory

The Responsibility to Protect and the Persistence of Colonialism

Profile image of Jessica WhyteJessica Whyte

Postcolonial World

Abstract

In a brief book review published in 2002 Edward Said drew attention to a new sympathy towards classical imperialism amongst intellectuals. In the wake of “years of degeneration following the white man’s departure”, Said argued, there was decreasing tolerance for the “disorder and tyranny” instigated by Nkrumah, Lumumba and Nasser, and expressions of admiration for the development, security and order supposedly enabled by colonial rule, were more prevalent. Central to this revisionism, Said suggested, was the view that anti-colonial resistance had bred a barbaric, fanatical, anti-Westernism, for which the West itself could not be held responsible. Against this background, this chapter turns to the postcolonial politics of human rights intervention Against this background, this chapter considers the contemporary politics of human rights intervention. It examines the conceptual redefinition of sovereignty as responsibility that was pioneered by Francis Deng, and taken up by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) as the central plank of its “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) norm. It suggests that the view that colonialism should be bracketed in apportioning responsibility for violence and insecurity in de-colonized states re-occurs in contemporary arguments about human rights and the responsibility to protect. As Francis Deng et al put it, several decades after independence “it is becoming increasingly inappropriate to blame Africa’s problems on colonialism”. The chapter argues that the ‘responsibilization’ of the post-colonial state obscures the responsibility of former colonial powers for problems to which that they now portray themselves as solutions.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P) norm shifts sovereignty's definition from rights to responsibilities.
  2. Colonialism's legacy is often sidelined in discussions of postcolonial state failures.
  3. R2P advocates argue against blaming colonialism for contemporary issues in de-colonized states.
  4. ICISS aimed to reconcile humanitarian intervention with state sovereignty through Deng's framework.
  5. Economic policies under R2P resemble historical standards of civilization, perpetuating Western dominance.

Related papers

Globalisation and the state : implications for the state of human rights in Africa
Adeniyi Basiru

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2015

This article interrogates, in theoretical cum descriptive fashion, the linkage(s) between neo-liberal globalisation, the state, and the state of human rights, using sub-Sahara Africa as a research backdrop. Drawing majorly from secondary data, it found out that the post-colonial states in Africa have been at the mercies of this technologically driven post- cold war phenomenon. It argues that globalisation has incapacitated African states and thus unable to safeguard and protect the human rights of their citizens The article recommended that the state, the epicentre of the socio-economic space in Africa, needs to be reconstituted via an autochthonous process. Keywords : globalisation, the state, autochthonous, neoliberalism, human rights

View PDFchevron_right
Between protection and stabilization? addressing the tensions in contemporary western interventions in Africa: An introduction
Jan Bachmann, Linnea Gelot

2012

This special issue sets out to analyze-from different epistemological perspectives and based on different case studies-tensions that have arisen in a number of recent security interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. The character of international peace and security missions in the Global South has changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. On the one hand, we witness a greater willingness to engage in order to terminate or prevent violent conflict. This willingness is grounded in a broader understanding of security in which the protection of the population is prioritized over the claim to security of a sovereign state. A state's sovereignty is increasingly interpreted as entailing a responsibility to protect the citizenry. On the other hand, a broadened international will to intervene in conflicts in the Global South raises a number of controversial questions regarding when and how and on whose behalf to intervene. What should be the projected end state of such liberal interventions? What does a responsibility to protect entail, conceptually and in practice? Who are the principal actors in complex and ambitious missions aimed at creating stability, peace, or (human) security? When should a stabilization mission end? What are the consequences when (short-term) security or humanitarian interests and (long-term) state-building or development interest are all legitimized through a discourse of protecting vulnerable populations? And, perhaps most importantly, what stakes do the actors directly affected by the conflict and the international response have? These are some of the questions the contributors address and analyze in this special issue.

View PDFchevron_right
Human Rights in Africa  A New Perspective on Linking the Past to the Present
Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua
View PDFchevron_right
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT IN AFRICA: A PROACTIVE PERSPECTIVE TO ARTICLE 4(h) OF THE AFRICAN UNION CONSTITUTIVE ACT
Wanki, Justin Ngambu, LL.D

East African Journal of Peace & Human Rights, 2017

The responsibility to protect (R2P) implemented by the African Union as Article 4(h) supposedly suggests that many options to suppress the emergence of mass atrocity crimes are contemplated ranging from prevention, reaction and rebuilding. Nonetheless, the threshold provided especially by the above Article for intervention betrays their contention for exclusive military intervention. Given that most mass atrocities committed in Africa are symptoms of structural violence and injustice, it has been suggested in this article that Article 4(h) be reconstituted and be grounded in social justice and elimination of structural violence so that the current Article 4(h) is only maintained as an exceptional and complementary measure of the anticipated reconstituted Article 4(h). The structural injustices proposed to be addressed are amongst others the tenets of constitutionalism, justiciability of socio-economic rights, citizenry participation in governance and provision for genuine democratic institutions. It is suggested that if the root causes that lead to mass atrocities are addressed, then military intervention will only be complementary in the anticipated provision for contingency sake.

View PDFchevron_right
From Below And To The Left: Human Rights and Liberation Politics in Africa's Postcolonial Age, Terretta, Jrl World History 24.2 2013
Meredith Terretta

In the 1960s, the human rights movement in the global North parted ways with liberation politics as it narrowly redefined human rights as negative protections for individuals. Yet, as this comparative analysis of human rights talk in postcolonial Tanzania and Cameroon reveals, in some parts of (post)colonial Africa, particularly in the former UN trust territories where a 1950s era conception of rights had become prevalent, human rights remained the expression of a political solidarity rooted in the liberatory practices of anticolonial struggle.

View PDFchevron_right
Not yet never again: An enquiry into external military intervention for human protection in Africa
Ademola Oluborode Jegede

JoAUS Volume 2, Issues 3-4, 2013 93-117

View PDFchevron_right
International Politics and Security Challenges in Africa: Interrogating the Non-Applicability of “The Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) to the Nigerian Situation
Essien U . Ukpe

AKSU Journal Administration and Corporate Governance (AKSULACOG), 2022

This study examined the doctrine of The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) adopted in 2001 at the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) which urges every state to protect the lives and properties of their people, and where a state is clearly either unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibility to protect or is itself the actual perpetrator of crimes or atrocities, the wider international community, through the United Nations, should activate the residual responsibility and intervene in such a country to avoid a reoccurrence of the genocide situation in Rwanda and the devastation in Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Bosnia. Through a historical/descriptive approach, the study revealed that the indigenous peoples of Nigeria have been facing threats of genocide, yet the United Nations have not invoked the R2P doctrine to stop it. Using national interest as a framework, the study reveals that the superpowers have bastardized the applicability of the concept of The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to only situations that suit their interests. The only time R2P succeeded in Libya was because Russia abstained from voting in the case. It was recommended that Civil Society should prevail on the Nigerian government to fulfil its obligation in R2P, also, the UN should invoke the R2P doctrine and intervene in Nigeria, local peace commissions should be established to mediate inter-communal tensions and build early warning systems in high-risk regions and that Nigerian citizens should also organize indigenous security outfits like the Amotekun and Ekpe Agwo to resist the systematic extermination of their nationalities in the country by terrorists.

View PDFchevron_right
Elizabeth Schmidt. Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility and the War on Terror. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2018. xxiv + 462 pp. Photographs. Maps. Glossary. Suggested Readings. Index. $36.95. Paper. ISBN: 978-0896803213
Larry Swatuk

African Studies Review

Elizabeth Schmidt's critical review of foreign political and military intervention in the African continent, Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility and the War on Terror, is a must read. In using the designation "foreign," the author is referring to actors who intervene in the affairs of a specific sovereign state who are not formally part of that state. This includes other states within and beyond the continent, multilateral organizations, and a variety of non-state actors such as rebel, irridentist, and mercenary groups and terrorist/extremist organizations/movements. While her focus is on political and military intervention, Schmidt describes and explains these actions through the complementary lenses of history and critical political economy. Put simply, post-Cold War intervention in the continent represents both continuity and change. Indeed, the story Schmidt tells is only too well known: Africa continues to be a global battleground for hearts, minds, and resources. The results of these struggles, though played out in very different locations, are disappointingly similar: foreign intervention does more harm than good, largely because the motives are selfish, despite claims to the contrary. Across thirteen chapters, Schmidt shows how and why foreign political and military intervention makes things worse for the average citizen. This, too, is nothing new to the student of Africa. Why, then, is this book a "must read"? In my view, it is because the author manages to bring together a massive amount of information across a highly diverse socioeconomic and political landscape, organize it around a very persuasive set of propositions, and present it in a highly readable and compelling way. The concise "suggested reading" essays at the end of each chapter are worth the price of purchase alone. This book, therefore, will appeal to a very wide audience, from the lay person looking for a sensible way into the complex question of why so much of the African continent seems always to be in upheaval, to regional experts interested in comparative studies and specialists seeking a handy one-stop

View PDFchevron_right
Human Rights in Africa in the new Global Order: A Dilemma?
BIMBO OGUNBANJO

afsaap.org.au

This paper tries to establish the basis for the assertion that human rights are universal, which is basically a demand for Western values to determine what is universally desirable in all parts of the world. This paper argues that historical and cultural linkages which were present in the evolution of the Western human rights model have themselves been a source of difficulty. They excluded Asian, Arab and African influences, for example. This paper therefore argues that, because these conceptions originated from the West and lacked inputs form other cultures, it is hard to justify their claim to universality. It is not surprising, therefore, that to some people, Western tenets of human rights are nothing but cultural imperialism, the paper suggests. This paper points out that, while it is true that, in the post-independent period after the 1960s, the new nations were involved in formulation of the international conventions on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, nevertheless, those convention remained largely the embodiment of Western values. Economic and social issues which did not fit into the Western viewpoint are still ignored. This paper goes on to argue that, If human rights are to play an important part in the new world order, a global pattern must emerge which will be inclusive of the values of other cultures and not exclusion of them. Secondly, the various global conception must be sifted and synthesised and genuine concerns taken into account to promote global acceptance. Thirdly, this paper argues that the acceptance by all human rights observation is imperative in human governance all over the world. According to this paper, therefore, unless we can develop an acceptable balance in political and economic well-being for all within the context of a just world economic order, the internationalization of human rights may remain a perpetual enigma. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference Proceedings-African on a Global Stage 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ human rights be restricted to a superpower slant which denies the economic rights of poor citizens and nations? What will be left in the human rights dish after everyone has picked and chosen? These and allied issues are the subject of discussion in this paper. Human rights principles are neither settled law nor incontrovertible principles. They are filled with social and cultural connotations, which give cause for concern. The normative prescriptions in this regard do not always stem from jurisprudential considerations but subjective factors such as socioeconomic circumstances and religious convictions. The projectionist school of thought postulates, for example, that contemporary global human rights formulations do not bind them because they are Western-made, loaded with Western values and prejudices, and do not reflect non-Western aspirations and priorities, particularly economic equality. The argument continues that in view of innate differences in approaches, it is unjust to impose pro-tailored models upon other nations. It may be rightly argued that certain inhuman practices, wherever they are found, should not be acceptable in contemporary times. Such conduct must be duly exposed for the maximisation of the quality of human life. These include human sacrifice, female circumcision, oppressive puberty rites, Widowhood rites, property rights of women, discriminating against women and children generally, etc. That same school of thought, if left alone, may be exploited as a rationalisation for depriving citizens of their fundamental human rights.

View PDFchevron_right
Sovereignty as responsibility: Theory and practice in Africa.
Hélène Gandois
View PDFchevron_right

References (39)

  1. Said, "Always on Top," n.p. . Ibid. . Ibid. . Ibid. . Ibid. . Cited in Richard Seymour, The Liberal Defense of Murder (London: Verso, ), . . See Seymour, The Liberal Defense of Murder for an account of the recapitulations of var- ious liberal defenders of the Iraq War. . Karuna Mantena, Alibis for Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, ), .
  2. Francis M. Deng, Sadikiel Kimaro, Terrence Lyons, Donald Rothchild, and I. William Zartmann, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Con ict Management in Africa (Washington, DC: Brookings, ). . ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect . . Deng et al., Sovereignty as Responsibility , .
  3. Ibid. . Ibid. . Pascal Bruckner, The Tears of the White Man (New York: Free Press, ), . . Said, "Always on Top," n.p. . Ibid. . Bruckner, The Tears of the White Man , . . Kwame Nkrumah, Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism , . https://www. marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm . . Antony Anghie, "Civilization and Commerce: The Concept of Governance in Historical Perspective." Villanova Law Review ( ): . . Ibid. . Said, "Always on Top," n.p. . Anne Orford has argued that the R P can best be viewed not as a norm that must be put into practice, but as a rationalization of pre-existing practices of international government. Orford provides a crucial genealogy of the emergence of such practices in International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, ). Here, I am interested in interrogating what Charlotte Epstein has characterized as "the neglect of the role of power in shaping ideational international orders," which I see as a key weakness of much of the enthusiasm for the R P. See Char- lotte Epstein, "The Postcolonial Perspective: An Introduction." International Theory . ( ): . . United Nations Secretary General, "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect." ( ): . . Robert Meister, After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, ). . Edward Said, "Preface." In Orientalism (London: Penguin, ), xvi-xvii.
  4. Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and as Idolatry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, ), . . Gareth Evans, "From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect." Wis- consin International Law Journal . ( ): . . ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect , .
  5. Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), . . ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect , .
  6. Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, ), . . Deng et al., Sovereignty as Responsibility , .
  7. Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, .
  8. Anghie, Antony. "Civilization and Commerce: The Concept of Governance in Historical Per- spective." Villanova Law Review ( ).
  9. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, .
  10. Bowden, Brett and Leonard Seabrooke, eds. Global Standards of Market Civilization (New York: Routledge, ).
  11. Bruckner, Pascal. The Tears of the White Man. New York: Free Press, .
  12. Chandler, David. "Why the Bombing of Libya Cannot Herald a Return to the s Era of Humanitarian Intervention." Monthly Review , April . http://mrzine.monthlyreview. org/ /chandler .html Deng, Francis M., Sadikiel Kimaro, Terrence Lyons, Donald Rothchild, and I. William Zart- mann. Sovereignty as Responsibility: Con ict Management in Africa . Washington, DC: Brookings, .
  13. Donnelly, Jack. "Human Rights: A New Standard of Civilization?" International Affairs . ( ): - .
  14. Epstein, Charlotte. "The Postcolonial Perspective: An Introduction." International Theory . ( ): - .
  15. Evans, Gareth. "From Humanitarian Intervention to the Responsibility to Protect." Wisconsin International Law Journal . ( ): - .
  16. ---. The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All. Wash- ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, .
  17. Glanville, Luke. "The Antecedents of Sovereignty as Responsibility." European Journal of International Relations . ( ): - .
  18. Gong, Gerrit. The 'Standard of Civilization' in International Society. (Oxford: Clarindon Press, .
  19. Hall, Stuart. "When Was the Post-Colonial?" In Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti, eds., The Post-Colonial Question. London and New York: Routledge, , -. http://www. theguardian.com/world/ /may/ /migrant-crisis-eu-plan-to-strike-libya-networks- could-include-ground-forces
  20. Ibhawoh, Bonnie. "Structural Adjustment, Authoritarianism and Human Rights in Africa." Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East XIX. ( ): - .
  21. Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and as Idolatry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press, .
  22. ---. "Intervention and State Failure." Dissent , Winter . http://www.dissentmagazine. org/article/intervention-and-state-failure International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The Responsibility to Pro- tect . Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, .
  23. Jeffries, Richard. "The State, Structural Adjustment and Good Government in Africa." The Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics . ( ): -.
  24. Mantena, Karuna. Alibis for Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism. Princ- eton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press, .
  25. Maude, Stanley. "Proclamation of Baghdad." Global Policy Forum , March , . https://
  26. Mbeki, Thabo cited in Mathias Dembinski and Theresa Reinold. "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect -African and European Perspectives." Peace Research Institute (PRIF) ( ). http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/ les/ .pdf Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, .
  27. Meister, Robert. After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights. New York: Columbia University Press, .
  28. Moyn, Samuel. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, .
  29. ---. "Imperialism, Self-Determination, and the Rise of Human Rights." In Akira Iriye, Petra Goedde and William I. Hitchcock, eds., The Human Rights Revolution: An International History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , - .
  30. Nkrumah, Kwame. "Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism." . https://www. marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm
  31. Orford, Anne. International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, .
  32. Rieff, David. "R P, RIP." New York Times , November , . http://home.sogang.ac.kr/sites/ jaechun/courses/Lists/b /Attachments/ /R P,% R.I.P.% -% NYTimes.com.pdf Said, Edward. "Nationalism, Human Rights and Interpretation." Raritan . ( ): -.
  33. ---. "Blind Imperial Arrogance." Los Angeles Times , July , . http://articles.latimes. com/ /jul/ /opinion/oe-said ---. "Preface." In Edward Said, Orientalism. London: Penguin, : xi-xxiii.
  34. ---. "Always on Top." London Review of Books . ( ): n.p. http://www.lrb.co.uk/ v /n /eward-said/always-on-top
  35. Schmitt, Carl. The Nomos of the Earth. New York: Telos Publishing, .
  36. Seymour, Richard. The Liberal Defense of Murder. London: Verso, .
  37. Thakur, Ramesh. "Libya, the First Stand or the Last Post for the Responsibility to Pro- tect?" E-International Relations , March . http://www.e-ir.info/ / / / libya-the-rst-stand-or-the-last-post-for-the-responsibility-to-protect/
  38. Traynor, Ian. "Migrant Crisis: EU Plan to Strike Libya Networks Could Include Ground Forces." The Guardian , May , . http://www.theguardian.com/world/ /may/ / migrant-crisis-eu-plan-to-strike-libya-networks-could-include-ground-forces UN General Assembly. Note [Transmitting Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Chal- lenges and Change, Entitled "A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility"] , December , A/ / , available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/ fdfb d.html [accessed May ].
  39. UN Security Council. Security Council Resolution ( ) [On the Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya] , March , S/RES/ ( ), available at: http://www.refworld. org/docid/ d fc .html [accessed May ].

Related papers

The Irresponsibility of the Responsibility to Protect in Africa
Adam Branch

It would seem intuitive that the assertion of a responsibility to protect would help promote just that – responsibility. In this chapter, however, I argue that the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), especially as it is applied to Africa, does not make political power responsible, but rather allows those with power to act in a politically irresponsible manner, at the cost of democracy and, often, peace. R2P can engender political irresponsibility due to two factors: first, it tends to reduce all politics in Africa to effective protection capacity; and second, it makes the legitimacy of the African state subject to determination by the ‘international community’ according to vague moral standards. Whether the African state is deemed legitimate and thus supported or deemed illegitimate and thus coerced, neither it nor those acting in the name of the ‘international community’ are accountable to those whose rights are supposedly being protected – African citi- zenries. This moralization and externalization of African politics undermines democracy and sets the stage for African and Western political actors to avoid having to justify their actions politically or to face the consequences of their actions. I conclude the chapter by arguing that political power will only be made responsible when it is held accountable by those who are subject to it. To this end, I propose replacing sovereignty as responsibility with popular sovereignty as a way of democratizing the R2P discourse – even if at the cost of R2P itself.

View PDFchevron_right
Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability edited by Peter Newell and Joanna Wheeler. Fighting for Human Rights edited by Paul Gready. Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-based Approaches from Theory into Practice edited by Paul Gready and Jonathon Ensor. Doing the Rights Thing:...
Peter Newell

Development and Change, 2007

This is an important book that cautions external authorities against subsuming the diversity of situations confronting many developing countries into singular descriptions of failed or collapsed states. States, Martin Doornbos advises, have never been static, have never followed identical pathways, and today face new pressures arising from globalization. In the past many societies survived without states. Some still do so today. Where states did exist, their control tended to be over people rather than defined territory. However this changed with colonialism, although in many cases the colonial impact was not deep, thereby contributing to today's many postcolonial grey areas between states and statelessness, states and non-states, and states and civil society. Doornbos implores us to understand these different trajectories and to look at the varied possibilities that lie beyond collapse (pp. 6-9). By focusing on post Cold War African states and comparing the European Union and India, Doornbos takes us on an exploration of the contours of the state, the changes brought about by recent globalization, and the loss of 'relative autonomy' that has left many states the target of rifts between middle classes and neglected populations (p. 47). This is a far cry from the nation-building primacy accorded states after independence. Today they contend with the 'good governance' agendas of interventionist multilateral institutions and aid organizations that are increasingly likely to view them suspiciously as obstacles to development. In doing so, however, multilateral organizations pay little attention to the internal dynamics required to legitimize and sustain the democratization they seek to engender. The apparent collapse of many states after 1989 revealed a fragility that had long been hidden by the Cold War. Concerned with the threats statelessness poses for treaties, debt obligations and terrorism, international agencies tend to respond to the challenge of collapse as if each 'failed' state represents the same problem and can be addressed by substantially similar solutions. Invariably this one-size-fits-all approach ignores the internal dynamics of ethnicity and its abuses, with the result that new disillusionments and inequities quickly generate or consolidate new fragmentations. Doornbos provides us one powerful example-Somaliland in Somalia-which, with the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, emerged as a sub-state with all the functional ingredients of stateness with one exception-sovereignty. International law, he argues, must deal with fluidity at the margins and recognize different degrees of stateness, if it is ever to come to grips with the problems facing many contemporary societies under stress. States may come in many shapes and forms, and their colonial precedents do not provide a benchmark for present or future outcomes. In this respect both Europe and India also represent the changing nature of the contemporary state, the former 'not yet a state' but utilizing (perhaps unwisely) regionalism as a means to develop central strength, the latter weakened by the resurgence of regional and community politics. No states, Doornbos concludes, are static. All are subject to constant change as they gain new roles and lose others (p. 201). The record of nation states in Africa is dismal and no model for inspiration. The EU, on the other hand, is an attempt to create a post nation state. Like India, it is a work in progress, open ended in terms of both identity and outcome. The same might be said of many states, but it is a point often missed by globalizing forces as they seek to preserve world order by intervening in countries or by imposing conditions in return for assistance. As in the colonial past, indirect rule is unsustainable. State systems need to regain autonomy and become

View PDFchevron_right
Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect: deconstructing regional legal and theoretical frameworks for action in Africa
John-Mark Iyi

2014

The ECOWAS and AU peace and security legal frameworks have attracted little study amongst international law scholars despite its far-reaching normative innovations and implications for Africa, the UN Charter-based law of humanitarian intervention and international law in general. With the exception of a couple of writers, the few studies that exist have dismissed such provisions as article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act and article 10 and 25 of the ECOWAS Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution Peacekeeping and Security Protocol (MCPMRPS) as illegal treaties because of their incompatibility with articles 2(4), 24(1), 53(1) and 103 of the Charter. None of these studies examined the theoretical basis of these treaties and at a time the world is in search of a legal framework for the operationalisation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), it has become imperative to undertake an interrogation of the theoretical underpinnings of these treaties. My study tested the legal validity of the AU/ECOWAS intervention instruments using two theoretical frameworks: transformations of world constitutive process of authoritative decision and the illegal international legal reform theories. It also examined the validity of the treaties under conventional and customary international law. The thesis advanced three main arguments: First, I argued that there are four constitutive processes in the international legal order. The UN was designed to establish a system with effective hierarchical institutions of decision making where unilateral acts would be unnecessary and so illegal. The UNSC failed in its duty as the authoritative decision-maker saddled with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and protecting human rights. On this basis the unilateral interventions treaties established by AU/ECOWAS are valid. Secondly, I argued that in a legal system such as the UN Charter-based system that poorly approximates justice and where there are few prospects for legal reform, a unilateral act of illegal international legal reform aimed at bringing about moral improvement in the law is permissible. The AU/ECOWAS treaties constitute illegal international legal reform because they seek to improve the law of humanitarian intervention to prevent future mass atrocities. Thirdly, I argued that under treaty law, there are several grounds for holding the AU/ECOWAS laws valid, basically because they constitute treaty-based interventions for which UNSC authorization is not required. I conclude that the fundamental assumptions on which the Charter was based have been radically altered and African states can plead change of v circumstances to obviate the application of the full weight of the Charter framework. Based on the above conclusions, I proposed the AU/ECOWAS treaty regimes for a theory of regional responsibility to protect as a theoretical framework for the operationalisation of the R2P in Africa. vi DEDICATION This work is dedicated to God for His love and faithfulness. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank God for granting me the good health and the spirit of sound mind and understanding to undertake this research. In the course of writing this thesis I received invaluable support from several persons and institutions and I would like to express my gratitude to everyone including those space will not permit me to mention here. In your different ways you made this research possible. I am most grateful to my supervisor, Professor Garth Abraham, a guide and ‗honorary compatriot' from whom I learnt the important virtues of patience, humility and kindness. Over and above the meticulous and quality supervision I received from you, you gave me opportunities that did not just enable me write a thesis but greatly enhanced my overall intellectual development as your student and this has impacted me in more profound ways than you can ever imagine. I could not have wished for a better supervisor. I owe a debt of gratitude to Julie Dunsford of the Mandela Institute. Julie was always willing to listen and help in any way she could to make sure this research was completed. I am

View PDFchevron_right
The Role of the United Nations, the African Union and Africa's Sub-Regional Organizations in Dealing with Africa's Human Rights Problems: Connecting Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect
Chris Israel Freeman

This article examines the basis for humanitarian intervention (HI) in the United Nations Charter, the African Union (AU) Charter and in a number of African sub-regional institutions. It traces the historical development of HI and argues that, while the right to HI emerged more than 100 years ago, that right also emerges from the Genocide Convention. The article argues that this treaty connects HI to the developing norm of the responsibility to protect (R2P) and examines the extent to which R2P is garnering wider support around the world. It focuses on the UN, and the various AU and sub-regional institutions and instruments that sanction HI. It assesses whether intervention can be authorized even in the absence of a UN Security Council mandate and examines the principles, application and interrelationship of R2P and HI in the African context. It traces the use of these norms in Africa, including in the various sub-regional structures, and evaluates the AU's political will and capability to deal with conflict and human rights abuse.

View PDFchevron_right
The Practice, Pitfalls, and Prospects of the Responsibility to Protect in Africa
ERAMEH NICHOLAS IDRIS

2019

Since the end of the Cold War, Africa has witnessed a flourishing of diverse forms of external intervention and interference, including humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (RtoP) missions. Indeed, interventions have become a structural characteristic of today's global politics as have the various challenges associated with these interventions. In spite of the pitfalls, Africa will likely witness more interventions. As evidence has shown from Libya, Mali, Cote d'Ivoire, as well as in other ongoing cases, highlights, RtoP interventions remain entangled between solving the problems of those conceptualized as beneficiaries and those conceptualized as targets. While there is a need to rethink the application of the RtoP, in general, it is imperative we reconsider what occurs during encounters between interveners and those intervened upon. Determining the success or failure of RtoP will remains partial until intervening nations take into account the role of local dynamics and varying cultural contexts, which inform social action, as well as the power relations between interveners and those intervened upon.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Political Theory
  • Human Rights
  • Edward Said
  • International Political Theory
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved