Abstract: The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace ... more Abstract: The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however, atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.
Since its adoption, Article 4(h) of the African Union has attracted the attention of commentators... more Since its adoption, Article 4(h) of the African Union has attracted the attention of commentators. The Article gives the African Union the right to intervene in member states to prevent war crimes, crime against humanity and genocide. The African Union has been working to develop the institutional mechanisms for the implementation of this provision. At the global level, the principle of the responsibility to protect and the UNSC as the institutional mechanism for its implementation was endorsed by States at the World Summit in 2005. Regional organisations and the UN Security Council were expected to cooperate in the implementation process. As is to be expected, Africa provided the first test cases for R2P and this has exposed the underbelly of the so-much touted “cooperation and partnership” between the African Union and the United Nations. I argue in this article that the intervention in Libya for example shows the turf fighting between the two organisations in the area of maintenance of peace and security in Africa. Notwithstanding the occasional partnership, the relationship between the AU and the UN in this area is often one of ‘institutional competition’ for relevance and control rather than ‘institutional cooperation’ and this often undermines their ability to intervene to prevent or halt mass atrocities in compelling cases. I conclude by proposing a transition from just institutional cooperation and partnership to institutional complementarity.
The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United
Nations (UN) peace keeping op... more The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however, atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.
Abstract: The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace ... more Abstract: The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however, atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.
Since its adoption, Article 4(h) of the African Union has attracted the attention of commentators... more Since its adoption, Article 4(h) of the African Union has attracted the attention of commentators. The Article gives the African Union the right to intervene in member states to prevent war crimes, crime against humanity and genocide. The African Union has been working to develop the institutional mechanisms for the implementation of this provision. At the global level, the principle of the responsibility to protect and the UNSC as the institutional mechanism for its implementation was endorsed by States at the World Summit in 2005. Regional organisations and the UN Security Council were expected to cooperate in the implementation process. As is to be expected, Africa provided the first test cases for R2P and this has exposed the underbelly of the so-much touted “cooperation and partnership” between the African Union and the United Nations. I argue in this article that the intervention in Libya for example shows the turf fighting between the two organisations in the area of maintenance of peace and security in Africa. Notwithstanding the occasional partnership, the relationship between the AU and the UN in this area is often one of ‘institutional competition’ for relevance and control rather than ‘institutional cooperation’ and this often undermines their ability to intervene to prevent or halt mass atrocities in compelling cases. I conclude by proposing a transition from just institutional cooperation and partnership to institutional complementarity.
The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United
Nations (UN) peace keeping op... more The protection of civilians has been a dominant theme in the United Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however, atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.
Uploads
Papers by John-Mark Iyi
Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates
presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however,
atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.
Nations (UN) peace keeping operations, most of which have had robust mandates
presenting new responsibilities and challenges. Despite robust mandates, however,
atrocities in armed conflicts remain pervasive, giving rise to questions about the efficacy of the means to deal with atrocities, for example, judicial mechanisms. Since the 1990s, attention has shifted to international criminal tribunals to hold accountable those responsible for perpetrating atrocity crimes, and in doing so, protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, the use of judicial mechanisms to deal with atrocities have produced mixed results in countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. This Chapter notes that judicial mechanisms are blunt tools for protecting civilians during armed conflicts. However, if judicial mechanisms are to be effective, particularly in Africa, there is need for a paradigm shift in current institutional arrangements from the ‘global’ to the ‘regional’ whereby judicial mechanisms are located within regional institutions at an intermediate level. For many reasons, regional judicial mechanisms hold better prospects for the effective protection of civilians in armed conflicts in Africa than global judicial mechanisms.