African Union: An Effective Cure or Western Caricature?

By Christina French

Christina French, a third year student at Albany Law School, is the Editor-in-Chief of Albany Law School's Journal of Science and Technology. She works at New York State United Teacher as a Law Clerk for the Office of General Counsel.

This paper was prepared for the International Law of War & Crime Seminar, Fall 2011 semester.
Ms. French has also been published by the Center for Judicial Process. (See, e.g., The New York Court of Appeals: Analyzing the Status of Workers’ Rights in New York, March 23, 2012.)

The divisive nature of the African continent dates back to the colonial era and decolonization of the 1950s and 1960s. Artificial borders resulted in artificial states and today internal armed conflict is in all likelihood, the primary impediment to the political, economic, and social development of contemporary Africa. In its search for unity, a regional organization such as the African Union may be Africa’s only hope for ending conflict in the divided African nation-states. This paper will address whether the African Union can effectively resolve internal conflicts as a necessary step in African development.

In order to maximize colonial control, colonialists drew artificial borders within African States without any understanding or interest in the ethnicity and tribalism that existed there. This did not pose a problem so much when the colonialists were there, acting as a centralizing government, providing a central police force, and for some, representing a common enemy. However, when the colonists left, there was a power vacuum.

Rather than returning to pre-colonial status, African states maintained the colonial power structure and merely replaced white imperial leaders with black African leaders. The maintenance of the status quo both in terms of borders and in large part, the leadership, created a situation in which conflict management in Africa was more likely to be within states than between states. In fact, the deadliest post-colonial conflicts were within African states. Conditions of civil unrest demanded that any attempt at conflict management, required an understanding of what was causing the internal conflicts more urgently than an understanding of the causes of external war. In other words, the African “situation” required a different response from the international community.*

_____________________________

* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.

To read the entire paper, open HERE.

Non-State Actors and Transnational Conflicts

The Changing State of International Warfare

By Tschika McBean

Tschika McBean, a co-Executive Editor of International Law Studies, is an LL.M candidate in International Law at Albany Law School. She is a graduate of the College of Law of Loyola University New Orleans. In addition to the United States, she has studied international law in Austria and Costa Rica. Her writings have appeared in publications such as the NYU Gallatin Literacy Project and Ithaca College’s academic journal. She was the president of the International Law Society at Loyola and she has interned or worked in several human rights organizations, including the Tompkins County Human Rights Commission, Citizens for Global Solutions, the Advancement Society and the New Orleans Family Justice Center. She has lived in five countries, spanning from Guyana to Morocco, and is currently working as a research assistant for Albany Law School's Distinguished Professor James Gathii.

This paper, like her presentation on Darfur that was published on this site earlier this year, was prepared for the International Law of War and Crime Seminar, Fall 2011.

The trend in global warfare, whereby States are forced to combat non-state actors such as Al Qaida and other armed groups who may or may not be supported by another State, is a pressing issue that necessitates a review of the current laws governing international warfare. In other words, the nature of fighting international conflicts has changed and the laws governing these conflicts must evolve as well. This is especially true in relations to securing accountability for the actions of rogue non-state groups that are independent of State support.

Furthermore, it is inarguable that present day international wars have moved beyond the confines of the Geneva Conventions, whereby the main actors (states, military combatants and civilians), their rights and responsibilities are clearly defined. By contrast, non-state actors, such as Private Military Security Contractors (PMSC), mercenaries and independent and State sponsored terrorists groups, are radically changing this equation. Many States are becoming increasing dependent on these groups to fight their wars, while the rights and responsibilities of these non-state actors remain nebulous.*

_____________________________

* Citations to references in this introduction are available in the paper.

To read the entire paper, open HERE.