REVIEWING THE SECURITY COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN AFRICAN ARMED CONFLICTS IN THE
LIGHT OF THE AFRICAN UNION’S CONSTITUTIVE ACT 2000.
The paper intends to argue primarily that the Security Council in general and some of
its members in particular, need to re-adjust their ‘strategic interest’ based approach to
humanitarian crisis in African armed conflicts in the light of the renewed vigour by
African Head of Governments to tackle these crisis. It will argue that in order to
eradicate the slow and sometimes ineffectual response by the Security Council to
conflicts in Africa, it’s members should recognize the radical change in the attitude of
African leaders towards non-intervention.
The adoption of the Constitutive Act of the African Union by African Heads of
Government in Lome in July 2000 signalled the final stage of the erosion of the
‘sovereignty based’ approached to African armed conflicts. Article 4(h) of the Act
grants member States a right to intervene in another member State where that State is
committing war crimes, acts of genocide, and crimes against humanity or acting in a
manner considered to be a serious threat to legitimate order. An additional Protocol
establishing the Peace and Security Council (PSC) was adopted in Durban in July
2002. The PSC is primarily responsible for dealing with conflicts on the continent
through the use of a standby military force, and the support (financial, logisitic, and
military) of the United Nations.
Needless to say, Article 4(h) raises questions with regards its compatibility with the
UN Charter especially Article 2, Chapter VII, and Chapter VIII. However, this paper
does not intend to join that debate but instead it will focus what can be obtained in
terms of better cooperation between the Security Council and African Countries in
dealing with the scourge of conflict. It would at least appear that the Security Council
welcomes interventions by sub-regional bodies like ECOWAS on humanitarian
grounds. The paper will argue that the Act should herald a new era of cooperation
where African heads of government (under a regional umbrella) are willing to
recognize humanitarian crisis and are also willing to act to stop them. The
authorization to intervene may be quicker with the knowledge by the permanent five
that they don’t necessarily need to deploy troops, and also as a result of the added
pressure from African heads of government.
The approach intended is to highlight the Security Council’s failures in Somalia and
Rwanda. The paper will consider the response of the international community in
general and the Security Council in particular with respect to both conflicts.
Thereafter ECOWAS’ response in Liberia and Sierra Leone and the subsequent
reaction of the Security Council will be considered. The analysis will raise questions
as to the use of Chapter VII powers especially with regards ‘threat to international
peace and security.’ It will argue that the selective nature in categorising conflicts as
constituting a threat to international peace and security is borne out of a lack of
political will to act which itself is shaped by a ‘strategic interest’ approach.
On this basis, the paper will argue from an African perspective that regional bodies
willing to take the lead in preventing humanitarian disasters as well as putting an end
to them need to given greater capability to act by the Security Council. Thus, relevant
provisions of the 2000 Act will be examined in order to highlight the new approach
adopted by African Heads of government.