Although the idea of r2p had been enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (au) shortly before the term was coined by the iciss, the au has been slow to live up to the commitment. Balancing r2p, on the one hand, with non-interference within the domaine reservé of the state, on the other hand, has proven an uphill battle. r2p sceptic member states have persistently opted for non-interference, and at most, a “non-indifference” approach representing a non-committal stance with regards to r2p. This paper offers reflections about the particular African construction of the third r2p “collective global” pillar, and explains the African reticence about the original iciss and 2005 World Summit Outcome versions of r2p. It expounds on the key reasons for this tempered reception and sheds light on the global governance security challenge as it plays out in the un-au politics of regional collaboration.
Katharina P. Coleman‘Innovations in “African Solutions to African Problems”: The Evolving Practice of Regional Peacekeeping in Sub-Saharan Africa’Journal of Modern African Studies49/4 (2011) pp. 517–545.
Tieku‘A Pan-African View of a New Agenda for Peace’ p. 375. Note also that this is being understood as representing Africa’s expression of commitment to democratic principles justifying military intervention against a list of grave crimes based on inter-societal rather than inter-governmental solidarity. See Coleman ‘Innovations in “African Solutions to African Problems”’ p. 528.
Kuwali‘Protect Responsibly: The African Union's Implementation of Article 4(H) Intervention’ p. 65. See also Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock ‘r2p: A New and Unfinished Agenda’ Global Responsibility to Protect 1/1 (2009) pp. 54–69 and Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock ‘Looking back at Kosovo can move the Syria conflict forward’ The Globe and Mail 26 August 2013 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/search/?q=axworthy+and+rock accessed 26 August 2013.