Africa’s Response to r2p

The Non-Indifference Approach and Global–Regional Cooperation

in Global Responsibility to Protect
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

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.

Africa’s Response to r2p

The Non-Indifference Approach and Global–Regional Cooperation

in Global Responsibility to Protect

Sections

References

4

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.

5

Ibid. p. 535.

11

Ogata and SenHuman Security Now p. 4.

45

Ban Ki-moon‘Report of the Secretary-General on the Relationship between the United Nations and Regional Organization’ p. 19 emphasis added.

47

Ibid. p. 2 emphasis added.

50

Ban Ki-moon‘Report of the African Union-United Nations Panel on Modalities for Support to African Union Peacekeeping Operations’ p. 2.

51

Ibid. p. 5.

53

Ibid. p. 13.

55

Initiated in 2007.

60

Ibid. p. 4 emphasis added.

65

Ibid. p. 3.

73

BellamyResponsibility to Protect pp. 78–79.

80

 See Ban Ki-moon‘Report of the African Union-United Nations Panel on Modalities for Support to African Union Peacekeeping Operations’ pp. 9–10.

81

African Union‘Policy Framework. Establishment of the African Standby Force and the Military Staff Committee’ p.3.

82

BellamyResponsibility to Protect p. 79.

86

Thomas Kwasi Tieku‘A Pan-African View of a New Agenda for Peace’International JournalSpring (2012) p. 378.

96

Tieku‘A Pan-African View of a New Agenda for Peace’ p. 374.

97

Ibid. p. 375.

99

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.

100

Tieku‘A Pan-African View of a New Agenda for Peace’ pp. 377–78.

110

Ban Ki-moonImplementing the Responsibility to Protect p. 6.

113

Williams‘The Peace and Security Council of the African Union: Evaluating an Embryonic International Institution’ p. 616.

114

 See Kuwali‘Protect Responsibly: The African Union's Implementation of Article 4(H) Intervention’ p. 64.

117

Burgess‘The African Standby Force Genocide and International Relations Theory’ p. 129.

124

Burgess‘The African Standby Force Genocide and International Relations Theory’ pp. 122–123.

127

Solomon Hailu‘A New Start for African Security’International Journal on World Peace26/4 2009 p. 66.

128

Kuwali‘Protect Responsibly: The African Union's Implementation of Article 4(H) Intervention’ p. 62.

131

Ibid. p. 530.

132

Hailu‘A New Start for African Security’ p. 71.

136

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.

144

Ibid. paragraph 6 p. 3 emphases added.

145

Ibid. p. 7.

147

Tieku‘A Pan-African View of a New Agenda for Peace’ p. 381.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 24 24 7
Full Text Views 103 103 65
PDF Downloads 9 9 3
EPUB Downloads 2 2 0