The Legal Discourse on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Africa

The principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Africa has been the subject of intense debates over the years. Having taken root within the framework of the African Union (AU), as the principle of non-indifference, R2P conveys a responsibility to intervene, in a member state, in response to war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The AU’s predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), was limited in this regard as a consequence of the principle of non-intervention. However, AU member states continue to negotiate how to find a balance within its legal framework, between this responsibility and the established principle of sovereignty which protects them from external intervention, thereby challenging at the same time the legal status of the R2P. While the necessity for a principle like this has been justified by several reputable scholars, others have argued that the R2P is just a means of justifying unilateral intervention in the affairs of other states. Against this background, the objective of this chapter is to explore the legal discourse on R2P in Africa. Using extant literature and other secondary sources, the chapter examines more specifically, with a focus on the African context, the legal dimensions of the three (3) major pillars of the R2P within the context of the challenges of implementation, and against the background of the continent’s unique political and security environment. We find that the R2P principle in Africa has its legal basis within the AU Constitutive Act and international law but it does have some legal hurdles to overcome. However, regardless of the legal challenges, the R2P principle supports the rule of law as well as multilateral and democratic institutions. The responsibility of the AU and its Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to protect remains a legal commitment made and accepted collectively by African states.