This inquiry was prompted by the resurgence of the phenomenon of coups in Africa in the recent past. The most recent wave of coups has brought the phenomenon under the scrutiny of continental and international bodies. Unlike in the first three decades after independence, which were characterized by inaction and indifference in the face of coups, in recent times African leaders are determined to stem the tide of coups through an unprecedented set of continental and sub-regional norms and collective action. The mini-thesis analyses traditional, and modern security paradigms, as well as comparative politics in order to understand and situate African coups. It argues that the African coup oscillates between the realist, organizational and praetorian paradigms of civil-military relations. Unlike its predecessor, the moribund Organisaton of African Unity (OAU), the African Union (AU) through normative instruments has demonstrated greater enthusiasm not only in reversing the coup tide, but more fundamentally in entrenching a culture of democracy and good governance. Its pronouncements and active engagement in coup-affected countries have been consistent, unambiguous and forthright. In conclusion, the mini-thesis identifies and assesses a myriad of factors at state and regional levels, as well the interests of foreign actors which have over the years conspired to limit the ability of continental bodies to deal effectively with unconstitutional changes of government. These factors, which are largely located at state level, at the core of which is the nature and form of the African state, need to be addressed first in order to rid the continent of the coup contagion. / Dissertation (MDiplomatic Studies)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

Africa has for a long time been embattled by differing acts of terrorism, with divergent manifestations such as suicide bombing, killings and hijacking. Accordingly, the Organisation of African Unity and subsequently the African Union took up the responsibility of developing strategies to counter the menacing trend of terrorism on the continent. To this end, several counter terrorism interventions were created. The first of Africa's interventions was developed as early as 1992, when the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) member states adopted a Resolution to strengthen cooperation and coordination among African states against different manifestations of extremism. Although, there is abundance of scholarly literature on the subject of understanding of terrorism and its human rights implications and also on the impact of terrorism on political pluralism, there is a dearth of scholarly writings on the activities of the African Union in relation to terrorism in Africa, particularly on whether the Union is responding positively to its counter terrorism agenda. Yet, the role of the African Union in this regard on the continent cannot be over emphasised. This study is therefore carried out to scrutinise the counter terrorism agenda of the African Union and explore its counter terrorism activities from inception till date. In ascertaining the necessity for the African Union to develop ways to adequately implement its counter terrorism agenda, the study carries out an assessment of the agenda and established its link with the United Nations counter terrorism framework. Recommendations about how best the agenda can be realised concludes the study. Specifically, the research explores the activities of the African Union with the aim of determining whether the agenda was merely paved with good intentions. While many weaknesses of the agenda were discovered and discussed in depth, the research concludes, that despite the gap that exists between the agenda and its implementation and the problem of resources bedevilling the implementation of the agenda, it will be unfair to describe the African Union counter terrorism agenda as merely paved with good intentions in the lights of numerous positive steps that have been taken towards translating the agenda into full implementation. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / gm2014 / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

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