A HUMAN SECURITY APPROACH FOR AU PSOs Policy Brief

IPSS, 2024

The nature of the wars, armed conflicts, violence and civil movements in African countries indicate that there is a need to improve and modernize the traditional military and police peace operations, especially African-led operations. A gap in mandate language, combined with an overall limited understanding of the tangible value of civil society engagement, has historically led to the lack of an institutional incentive within missions to develop a systematic approach for regular mission engagement with civil society actors on issues of peace and security (DPKO, 2016). Various resolutions passed by the UNSC and AU PSC gradually evolved to specifically emphasising to protect the human rights of vulnerable groups. Emphases came to be placed on the importance of adhering to the Secretary-General’s Human Rights and Due Diligence Policy and the United Nations Zero-Tolerance Policy on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. Increasing the involvement of local actors supporting justice, police, and civilian management and governance capacities could make peace support more effective. Successive resolutions stressed concerns on violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings, violence against women, children and journalists, arbitrary detention and pervasive sexual violence, and underscoring the need to end impunity, uphold human rights and to hold accountable those who commit such crimes. A human security approach could speak better to legitimacy and authority where there is no other source. It could set up a more solid foundation for a state to emerge, not based on violence or for an indifferent and exploitative form of governance to be imposed.

IPSS, 2024

Protection of civilians mandates have been a key feature of peace support operations for almost two decades, but policies and guidance for troops on how to achieve this exist mostly in aspirational and normative instruments. The quality of missions are affected by an inability of international support to address the root causes of the conflict. While United Nations peacekeeping operational doctrines are readily understood at the strategic level, their effective implementation at the tactical level poses challenges. The international response to conflict often takes the form of increasingly complex interventions characterized by institutional proliferation and overlap; various sources of legitimacy and authority; and convoluted hierarchies. Missions increasing operate in an unstable environment where conflict dynamics are highly unpredictable. A closer integration between the AU missions and the UN system of coordination bodies, funds and programmes is widely suggested by stakeholders.

African Security Review, 2016

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. KEYWORDS African Union; responsibility to protect; peace and security; capacity; prevention and response 'Over time, the processes of socialization and a few more success stories in the field may encourage more African states to increase the resources they commit to the PSC [Peace and Security Council]. Let us hope so, because if Africans don't take this institution to heart, who else will?' 1

IPSS, 2024

Although protection of civilians mandates have been a key feature of peace support operations for almost two decades, policies and guidance for troops on how to achieve this exist mostly in aspirational and normative instruments. AMISOM had a contradictory relationship with the challenge to protect Somali civilians and to comply with its mandate. This begs the question of whether the foreign troops brought peace or whether their presence rekindled the conflict. The heavy presence of AU troops brought some stability but also reignited hostilities, rivalry and retaliatory attacks by militant groups against potential targets. The need for recognition and understanding of how Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) operate in hostile environments in the interest of civilians and the ad-hoc initiatives adopted by PSOs indicate a need for systemic change and a resolution of the tension between, mandate; doctrine, practice and reception of missions. Perpetrators of violence against civilians employ a range of strategies to both target the physical safety and well-being of individuals and groups and to render the environment in which individuals and groups live insecure. While all stakeholders, including the UN, AU, troop contributing countries, and the Somali government, share a common understanding of countering Al-Shabaab’s vision, the political commitment to this fight varies.

13:1 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LAW REVIEW (2016) (forthcoming)

In the last decade the United Nations and the African Union have forged a close partnership in matters of international peace and security. This paper attempts to shed light to the multifaceted role of the UN on the strategic and operational planning and evolution, as well as the funding, of regional (AU) peace support operations. Such involvement goes well beyond a simple authorization by the UN Security Council and raises crucial questions in respect of the allocation of responsibility between the UN and the AU. The analysis of the relevant responsibility allocation clauses showcases that a holistic approach should be adopted that does not micromanage the different aspects of the UN involvement in regional missions, but treats them as an aggregate that should be taken into account as a whole when allocating responsibility. Otherwise, the soft or indirect (but crucial) influence exercised by the UN will inevitably escape responsibility.