MA, Faculty of Humanities, School of Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 2007 / The settlement of international disputes by peaceful means has been described as one of the principles basic to the whole structure of the international system. It has been contended that this principle is the natural corollary for the prohibition of the use of force in settlement of international disputes enshrined in Art. 24 of the United Nations Charter, and embodied in Art. 2 (3). The UN’s organ assigned this mediation role is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for matters with respect to state responsibility. The International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the Special Court of Sierra Leone are international tribunals with jurisdiction to try matters relating to individual criminal responsibility. At continental as well as at regional levels, some states have set up their own institutions to peacefully manage conflict amongst them and in the broader region. Nevertheless, the question—in a world where dispute settlement institutions and processes are supernumerary relative to conflicts, can they effectively serve as key to conflict prevention? remains a major concern. Based on critical research, this report inquires whether conflict prevention is mythical or an attainable objective and whether the international judiciary which is prima facie a conflict mediation body can catalyze conflict prevention. In attempting to answer these questions, an understanding of the concepts of free and fair trial is preponderant; coupled with understanding current debates about the undermining of international justice by the states.

This article examines the effectiveness of the African Union (AU) Continental Early Warning System (CEWS) in its role in the prevention of conflict in Africa stemming particularly from unconstitutional changes of government and elections. In exploring this, regard is paid to the following conflict case studies: Kenya (2007), Guinea Bissau (2012) and Burundi (2015). In assessing the effectiveness of the CEWS, the article explores its operations and how well it is able to gather holistic early warning information in relation to conflicts before they emerge, liaising with Regional Economic Communities and academic institutions, think tanks and other entities. It also looks at how well the CEWS is able to swiftly relay the said early warning information to critical decision making bodies within the African Peace and Security Architecture such as the AU Peace and Security Council as well as the Chairperson of the AU Commission to prevent the conflict from emerging. / Mini Dissertation (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa))--University of Pretoria, 2021. / NRF / Centre for Human Rights / LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa) / Unrestricted

yes / The UK Government welcomes the findings and recommendations of the Evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools recently completed by Bradford University at the Government's request. A thorough evaluation of the Pools' unique approach was essential in order to ensure that, two years after their inception, the Pools not only functioned effectively, but actively added value to Departments¿ individual contributions. In this context, the finding that the progress achieved through the Pools justifies their continuation is particularly important. This document responds to the Evaluation's other key findings and recommendations.

Yes / The objective of this study is to provide an evidence base concerning the costs and benefits of conflict prevention (CP) activities (defined as those activities undertaken primarily to reduce the risk of conflict), compared with those of engaging after large-scale conflict has begun.

yes / P1. The purpose of the Portfolio Review is to describe the programmes and associated activities that are being evaluated. Since its main purpose is descriptive, it draws heavily on existing official documents as appropriate. It should be noted that Her Majesty¿s Government (HMG) has not previously commissioned a comprehensive overview of the Conflict Prevention Pools (CPPs) from the perspective required for the Evaluation. Though various forms of overview of each of the two CPPs have been prepared, the purposes and therefore the content of these have been different from the purpose at hand. P2. This brief `analytical history¿ of the Conflict Pools will provide an account of how and why the CPP¿s have developed in the way that they have. The Portfolio Review does not aim to provide the analytical framework for meeting the key objectives of the evaluation, as set out in the Terms of Reference (ToRs). This has been done in the Inception Report, and this Portfolio Review should not be read in isolation from the Inception Report. P3. The Portfolio Review provides a description of the CPPs, their funding, their projects, and their administrative processes to a level of detail appropriate to the purposes of the Evaluation and the agreed length of the document. For a document of this length (a planned 20 pages plus annexes) to address a program of more than 600 million operating in some 100 countries, and involving the interests of five separate departments of state in the UK, not to mention significant other stakeholders outside the UK, difficult choices about the scope and detail of material to be included had to be made. As we crystallize our priorities for what to include in the final version of the Portfolio Review, given the constraints of length, we would invite comments as to further material that could be included. P4. The Portfolio Review has involved London-based research, including interviews with officials as well as review of documentary sources. This work has included collection of preliminary information on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of current programming effectiveness and administration. In respect of existing CPP activities, it supplements the Inception Report as a guide to the authors of the case studies. For the Portfolio Review, we interviewed some 25 officials across five departments. The main purpose of interviews in the Portfolio Review stage was to support the effort of getting down on paper, for the first time, a comprehensive description, with an appropriate level of consistency, of all of the purposes, all of the key processes, and all of the activities of the CPPs.

yes / P1. The Conflict Prevention Pools (CPPs) are a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Department for International Development (DFID) mechanism for funding and managing the UK¿s contribution towards violent conflict prevention and reduction. The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool (ACPP) covers sub-Saharan Africa while the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) covers the rest of the world. The CPPs were established by Her Majesty¿s Government (HMG) in April 2001, following a government-wide review of UK conflict prevention work in 2000. The rationale behind the CPPs is that by bringing together the interests, resources and expertise of FCO, MOD and DFID, greater effectiveness can be achieved.

yes / Improving the effectiveness of the UK contribution to conflict prevention and management ¿ an assessment of 6 geographical areas and 2 thematic areas of the Conflict Prevention Pools with recommendations for HMG to consider in future strategic planning.

This case study considers the relative costs of conflict prevention and post-crisis intervention for Sudan during the period 2004-2018.

yes / The evaluation was undertaken by Bradford University, Channel Research Ltd, the PARC & Associated Consultants. The Afghanistan Case study was carried out by Mr Jonathan Goodhand with Mr Paul Bergne. The work was conducted through fieldwork in Afghanistan (Kabul and Malaria Shari) where the team conducted interviews with a range of officials including staff from UK Embassy, GCPP projects, the Mazar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and UN, Afghan Government and NGO officials. The fieldwork was supplemented by further interviews in London and a review of the relevant literature and project documents.P7. The Afghanistan Case Study is one of six studies undertaken within the framework of the evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools. In accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToRs) and the Inception Report, the Evaluation placed maximum emphasis on the macro level: the policy processes in Whitehall by which decisions on allocations are made and implemented by the CPPs. Considerable attention has also been placed on the meson level: the degree to which CPP policies and activities in a given conflict form part of a coherent package of direct interventions by the international community and local actors to the problems of particular large scale deadly conflicts or potential conflicts. The microlevel of analysis (review of specific projects) confines itself largely to the way in which projects impact on the meson and macro levels. The Evaluation has not analysed systematically whether specific projects funded by the CPPs have been well managed and whether they have achieved their specific project goals. Single projects have been analysed to the extent that they reflect on the macro and meson levels. P8. The main findings of the evaluation, reflected in this Synthesis Report, are that the CPPs are doing significant work funding worthwhile activities that make positive contributions to effective conflict prevention, although it is far too early in the day to assess impact. The progress achieved through the CPP mechanisms is significant enough to justify their continuation.

yes / P5. The evaluation was undertaken by Bradford University, Channel Research Ltd, the PARC & Associated Consultants. The Sudan Case study was carried out by Mr Emery Brusset of Channel Research Limited. Work was conducted in three phases. The first was London-based, and involved situating the ACPP activities in the context of UK approaches to conflict prevention and the overall policy framework of the ACPP. The second phase, the most intense, involved fieldwork in the Sudan and Kenya. The third phase involved consultations in London through October and November, with ACPP representatives, and specifically with the joint FCO-DFID Sudan Unit in London. P7. The Sudan Case Study is one of six studies undertaken within the framework of the evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools. In accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToRs) and the Inception Report, the Evaluation placed maximum emphasis on the macro level: the policy processes in Whitehall by which decisions on allocations are made and implemented by the CPPs. Considerable attention has also been placed on the meso level: the degree to which CPP policies and activities in a given conflict form part of a coherent package of direct interventions by the international community and local actors to the problems of particular large scale deadly conflicts or potential conflicts. The microlevel of analysis (review of specific projects) confines itself largely to the way in which projects impact on the meso and macro levels. The Evaluation has not analysed systematically whether specific projects funded by the CPPs have been well managed and whether they have achieved their specific project goals. Single projects have been analysed to the extent that they reflect on the macro and meso levels. P8. The main findings of the evaluation, reflected in this Synthesis Report, are that the CPPs are doing significant work funding worthwhile activities that make positive contributions to effective conflict prevention, although it is far too early in the day to assess impact. The progress achieved through the CPP mechanisms is significant enough to justify their continuation.