"The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one provides the context in which the study is set, the focus and objectives of the study, its significance, and other preliminary issues including the hypothesis and literature survey. Chapter two first seeks to briefly portray the current state of human rights in Africa. In the second part, history and development of the African Union is traced, within the context of its predecessor - the OAU. Its third part extracts and analyses the specific human rights content of the AU Constitutionve Act and other relevant provisions, both independently and collectively; while its fourth part progresses to examine the conribution of the AU to human rights so far, by gauging and scrutinizing the human rights content of its summits. The fifth and final part scrutinizes the implications of the linkage of human rights to development and hence, its re-conceptualisation or otherwise, in Africa. Chapter three seeks to examine the extant implications of the AU human rights agenda on the existing human rights protection framework. First, it provides a brief overview of the existing regional human rights protection system, while its second part elucidates the human rights enforcement mechanisms that have been developed under the African Charter system. Its third part seeks to examine the problem of enforcement of, and non-compliance with human rights in Africa, with a view to understanding the problem, and forging a way forward. Its fourth part looks at the relationship between the AU and the existing human rights institutions within the context of the AU Constituve Act, while its concluding part addresses the latent risk of proliferation and redundancy that might attend the proposed creation of more human rights-oriented institutions under the AU/NEPAD; proposing rationalization of the same and the fusion of compatible mandates, with the view of avoiding unnecessary and expensive duplications. Chapter four seeks to present the probable picture of the fusion of the emerging and existing frameworks. Its first part sets out to describe, as well as explicate the justifications for the proposed human rights enforcement framework under the AU, citing models. Its second part seeks to explore the potentialities of trade as veritable tool of sanction within the proposed structure, while its concluding part seeks to do the same in relation to the device of peer pressure. The fifth and final chapter of the study seeks to draw some conclusions and further give recommendations on how the proposed hybrid framework can be achieved, while emphasizing the importance of such synergy as a feasible solution of the problem of human rights enforcement in Africa." -- Chapter 1. / Prepared under the supervision of Prof. J. Oloka-Onyango, Faculty of Law, Makerere University / Mini Dissertation (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa))--University of Pretoria, 2003. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

The African Union (AU) was established by the African Union Constitutive Act in 2000 to address the shortcomings of its predecessor the Organisation for African Unity (OAU). One of the main considerations for the establishment of the AU was the OAU’s strict adherence to the principle of non-intervention. The OAU was established on the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity but the leaders of Africa realised that while the protection of sovereignty and territorial integrity was important ambitions for the African continent, it was just as important that African conflicts are resolved more effectively. While the AU Constitutive Act restates the commitment of the AU to the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the AU Constitutive Act also provides for protection of human rights and, most significantly, for the limited intervention by the AU in grave circumstances. Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act provides the “right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity”. The right to intervention contain in this article provide a great opportunity to improve the effectiveness of conflict management on the African continent. However, Articles 2(4) and 2(7) of the United Nations Charter pose a strong challenge to the legality of intervention under article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act. It is generally accepted that consent or invitation by the state concerned precluded any wrongfulness of the prima facie violation of international law and in particular a valid exception to the prohibition on the use of force. By signing the AU Constitutive Act the member states of the AU consented in advance to the possibility of intervention and consequently there is no conflict between the right to intervene and the prohibition of the use of force, as long as the AU remains within the bounds set out in the AU Constitutive Act and the succeeding mandate given by the Assembly. It might be argued that the prohibition on the use of force is a ius cogens norm that cannot be contracted out and that any agreement to this effect is void. However, the commentaries to Article 26 of the Articles on State Responsibility state that consent may be relevant when applying such a peremptory norm. Furthermore, only the prohibition on aggression is peremptory in nature. The definition of aggression states inter alia that aggression is the use of armed force on the territory of another in contravention of an agreement between the parties concerned. Thus, use of force undertaken in the territory of a state within the bounds of the agreement between the parties is not aggression and thus not a violation of a peremptory norm. The increased international focus on human rights and human security has influenced the way the notion of sovereignty and the principle of non-interference are understood. In 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s report “The Responsibility to Protect” introduced the twin norms of sovereignty as a responsibility and the Responsibility to Protect. The notion of sovereignty as a responsibility implies that every state has the responsibility to protect its people from gross human rights abuses, while the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) refers to the responsibility of the international community to act should as state be unwilling or unable to fulfil its responsibilities towards its citizens. By incorporation of the right to intervention in its Constitutive Act, the AU has embraced the concept of Responsibility to Protect. While the international endorsement of this concept and the constant paralysis of the SC, especially in respect of Africa, adds considerable legitimacy to possible intervention by the AU in terms of article 4(h). / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2014 / Public Law / Unrestricted

In April 2021, the military in Chad seized power upon the death of its President Idriss Deby whiles in the field fighting the rebel group Fighters of the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT). By the end of 2021, soldiers had toppled elected governments in Mali, Guinea Conakry, and Sudan. The African Union and its relevant sub-regional organizations reacted by suspending all the countries above from participating in its activities as provided for in its constitutive act with a curious exception of Chad. Using a qualitative content approach of the African Union Peace and Security Council communiques and press releases, this research investigates the factors that influenced this inconsistent response of the AU. The central argument that is defended in this research is that the African Union put security considerations ahead of good governance by considering the unique security challenges in the Sahel region and Lake Chad Basin and the importance a stable Chad plays in the sub-regional fight against violent extremism. This is reinforced by the influence of France’s support to the military in Chad, the silent of the sub-regional economic community of Central Africa on the ongoing situation in Chad and a divided Peace and Security Council of the African Union. This thesis employs constructivism and rational choice theory as a theoretical framework.

There is enough evidence on how climate change consequences will adversely affect Africa despite the fact that it is the continent that has least contributed to the problem. The international climate change regime recognises Africa's vulnerability to climate change and provides for special treatment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC). Thus, the international climate change regime presents an opportunity for African countries to adapt and mitigate the consequences of climate change through the UNFCCC mechanism. However, the international climate change legal regime has not been able to adequately assist African countries to address the consequences of climate change under the vulnerability principle. Although the current international climate change regime requires developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Africa needs to take steps itself to address the problem, because it is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. The African Union (AU) could play a great role in ensuring that the international climate change regime addresses the consequences of climate change in the region. This could be done through fostering strong African common positions during international climate change negotiations. A strong common position could strengthen African bargaining power and might result in more funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer for adaptation and mitigation programmes under the UNFCCC-Kyoto Conference of Parties. However, reaching a strong common position requires the cooperation of the AU member states. In this context, African regional integration is an opportunity for the AU to foster such cooperation among member states. The Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community (the Abuja Treaty), the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Protocol on the Relations between the AU and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) prioritise regional economic integration and call for states' cooperation, but the call has not yet been heeded. To realise deep and viable African integration, there must be a well-structured institutional and legal framework that defines the relationship between the AU, the AEC and the RECs. African regional integration is also seen as an avenue whereby the AU can create its own regional climate-change regime. In this regard, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is examined in order to assess whether it adequately integrates climate change issues. This study finds that although Africa is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is weak and inadequate to address the problem. The Framework should integrate climate change issues in order to achieve sustainable development. The AU should also ensure that member states ratify the relevant treaties and protocols (the Maputo Nature Convention and the Protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) that have not yet been ratified in order that they may become operational. The Maputo Nature Convention puts sustainable development in the forefront of attention as a reaction to the potentially conflicting environmental and developmental challenges facing the continent (such as climate change), but it is not yet in force. This work finds that human rights law can strengthen the AU's role in addressing climate change through its normative framework. The human rights approach to climate change under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Banjul Charter) is a viable avenue because human rights law forms the basis for states' responsibility based on human rights obligations and principles. The extraterritorial application of the Banjul Charter presents an avenue for AU institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and the African Human Rights Court to curb the effects of climate change through a human rights lens. The future of the AU is presented within the context of a set of recommendations that identify strong African regional integration as an avenue through which the AU can foster the cooperation of member states to address the consequences of climate change in the AU's and RECs' normative frameworks. General recommendations are made on the need for the international climate change regime to pay more attention to issues of funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer on the basis of the vulnerability principle and in relation to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Also, the AU needs to strengthen its legal and institutional structures to ensure deep African integration that is capable of addressing common challenges such as the consequences of climate change. / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

There is enough evidence on how climate change consequences will adversely affect Africa despite the fact that it is the continent that has least contributed to the problem. The international climate change regime recognises Africa's vulnerability to climate change and provides for special treatment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC). Thus, the international climate change regime presents an opportunity for African countries to adapt and mitigate the consequences of climate change through the UNFCCC mechanism. However, the international climate change legal regime has not been able to adequately assist African countries to address the consequences of climate change under the vulnerability principle. Although the current international climate change regime requires developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Africa needs to take steps itself to address the problem, because it is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. The African Union (AU) could play a great role in ensuring that the international climate change regime addresses the consequences of climate change in the region. This could be done through fostering strong African common positions during international climate change negotiations. A strong common position could strengthen African bargaining power and might result in more funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer for adaptation and mitigation programmes under the UNFCCC-Kyoto Conference of Parties. However, reaching a strong common position requires the cooperation of the AU member states. In this context, African regional integration is an opportunity for the AU to foster such cooperation among member states. The Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community (the Abuja Treaty), the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Protocol on the Relations between the AU and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) prioritise regional economic integration and call for states' cooperation, but the call has not yet been heeded. To realise deep and viable African integration, there must be a well-structured institutional and legal framework that defines the relationship between the AU, the AEC and the RECs. African regional integration is also seen as an avenue whereby the AU can create its own regional climate-change regime. In this regard, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is examined in order to assess whether it adequately integrates climate change issues. This study finds that although Africa is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is weak and inadequate to address the problem. The Framework should integrate climate change issues in order to achieve sustainable development. The AU should also ensure that member states ratify the relevant treaties and protocols (the Maputo Nature Convention and the Protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) that have not yet been ratified in order that they may become operational. The Maputo Nature Convention puts sustainable development in the forefront of attention as a reaction to the potentially conflicting environmental and developmental challenges facing the continent (such as climate change), but it is not yet in force. This work finds that human rights law can strengthen the AU's role in addressing climate change through its normative framework. The human rights approach to climate change under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Banjul Charter) is a viable avenue because human rights law forms the basis for states' responsibility based on human rights obligations and principles. The extraterritorial application of the Banjul Charter presents an avenue for AU institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and the African Human Rights Court to curb the effects of climate change through a human rights lens. The future of the AU is presented within the context of a set of recommendations that identify strong African regional integration as an avenue through which the AU can foster the cooperation of member states to address the consequences of climate change in the AU's and RECs' normative frameworks. General recommendations are made on the need for the international climate change regime to pay more attention to issues of funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer on the basis of the vulnerability principle and in relation to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Also, the AU needs to strengthen its legal and institutional structures to ensure deep African integration that is capable of addressing common challenges such as the consequences of climate change. / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

L’évaluation de l’expérience de l’Unité africaine par rapport à l’Unité européenne dépasse l’aspect conceptuel car orientée vers une philosophie d’intérêt commun. Ainsi, il faut reconnaitre que l’idée d’Union en elle-même, est née d’un ensemble de circonstances historiques, politiques et socio-économiques. Cette évidence met en relief l’originalité de l’Union européenne qui, contrairement à l’Union africaine, a suscité une longue prise de conscience des pays fondateurs, lesquels se sont retrouvés à l’issue de la Seconde Guerre mondiale face à la nécessité de reconstruire leurs pays à tous les plans. A contrario, il semble que peu de nouveautés aient été apportées par l’Union africaine à l’Organisation de l’Unité africaine préexistante. Force est de constater, en outre, que l’Union africaine n’a fait que reconduire de façon formelle la structure institutionnelle de l’Union européenne sans prendre en compte la particularité socio culturelle et politico économique du continent africain. / The evaluation of African Unity’s experience in relation to the European Unity exceeds the conceptual aspect as oriented toward a philosophy of mutual interest. Thus, we must recognize that the idea of ​​Union itself was born of a set of historical, political and socioeconomic. This evidence highlights the originality of the European Union who, unlike the African Union, sparked a long awareness of the founding countries, which met at the end of World War II faced with the need to rebuild their country at all levels. Conversely, it seems that little new has been made by the African Union to the Organization of African Unity preexisting. It is clear, moreover, that the African Union has only formally renew the institutional structure of the European Union without taking into account the socio-cultural and politico economic peculiarity of the African continent.