Content uploaded by Thomas Kwasi Tieku
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Kwasi Tieku on Jun 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Curious Case of Hybrid Paternalism: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between the UN and AU on Peace and Security
Abstract
This article conceptualizes the working relationship between the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN). The depth of the AU-UN partnership is unparalleled in terms of the UN’s relations with other regional security institutions in the world and it even transcends the traditional classification of the UN’s relations with regional organizations (ROs). We suggest that the concept of hybrid paternalism, when disaggregated and used as a multidimensional analytical framework, provides an accurate and convincing description of the complex nature of the AU-UN relationship. The article identifies five different dimensions of hybrid paternalism, namely: legal paternalism, resource-based paternalism, political paternalism, normative paternalism, and ideational paternalism. When examined from the perspective of the five elements of hybrid paternalism, it becomes clear that the relationship between AU and the UN is inherently symbiotic and codepen-dent. Both institutions share Africa’s peacemaking burden and have each other to use as a scapegoat when peacemaking activities do not go according to plan. In addition, while the UN has a partner it can use to gain consent to intervene in all the states in Africa (except Morocco), the AU has a counterpart it can go to for financial, technical, logistical, and human resources assistance to fulfill its mandate. The codependent nature of the relationship opens up opportunities for each institution to influence decision-making processes and the organizational behavior of the other. To ensure nuanced, textured, and in-depth discussion, the article draws information primarily from the relationship between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) to illustrate the argument.
... While some emphasise the potential for a productive division of labour that puts regional organizations on more equal footing with the UN (Douhan 2016;Graham and Felicio 2006;Yamashita 2012), others see an increasing potential for friction (de Coning 2017; Moe and Geis 2020). African scholars in particular have used terms such as 'hybrid paternalism' to caution that closer cooperation will not necessarily eliminate asymmetries in UN-AU relations (Murithi 2008;Tieku and Hakak 2014). Recently, some authors have contextualized these discussions in IR theories on regime complexity and inter-organizational relations, and teased out the organizational politics shaping global-regional security relations (Aris, Snetkov, and Wenger 2018;Brosig 2020;Wallensteen and Bjurner 2015;Welz 2016). ...
... Most of these works assume that joint initiatives combine the relative legitimacy advantages of both sides. 4 In a process of mutual exchange of symbolic resources within a 'legitimacy pyramid' (Coleman 2007;Gelot 2012), regional organizations tap into the supreme authority vested in the UN, while the UN can draw on regional organizations as 'legitimacy brokers' which raise the acceptance of peacekeeping by local stakeholders, as it tried to do with the Arab League on Libya (Tieku and Hakak 2014;Wajner and Kacowicz 2018). ...
The ‘hybrid' United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) was initially hailed as a model for peacekeeping cooperation between the UN and African regional organizations. However, UNAMID soon faced contestation from different stakeholders, and the UN and the AU have now essentially abandoned the hybrid approach. The article reconstructs how the mission’s deteriorating legitimacy relates to changing self-legitimation strategies by the two organizations. The UN and the AU pursued mutual legitimation when establishing UNAMID, but later mobilized historical narratives and diverging normative standards to promote competing authority claims. The article thus advances an understanding of inter-organizational relations as inherently political.
... However, its nature is distinctly different from similar cases in the past. In addition, the cyber era is characterised by a need to augment some of the established theories in international relations and the types of conflict they typically consider, with companies playing a major role (Geers 2009;Hsueh 2016;Kinne 2018;Tieku 2014). ...
... Further, issues of subsidiarity and paternalism with the United Nations (UN) shortchange the role of subregional organizations and relegate them to the service of larger regional or international organizations. 7 Increased attention on the AU and its role in responding to unconstitutional changes in government and peace and security governance across Africa also brings to question the relevance of organizations such as ECOWAS and its contributions to international peace and security norms. ...
... Another strategy evident in regional organizations is "hybrid paternalism," or reliance on complex, negotiated, mutually dependent, and yet competitive relationships through which institutional members strive to gain access to institutional resources, support, and legitimacy (Glas & Balogun 2020;Murithi 2009;Tieku & Hakak 2014). These processes may stress discourses of capacity building, the right to development, and norm protection in order to gain resources and global attention. ...
Although the COVID-19 pandemic had claimed over one million lives globally by late 2020, Africa had avoided a massive outbreak. Patterson and Balogun analyze pandemic responses by the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and various states collaborating with civil society. They argue that responses display forms of agency rooted in contextually relevant expertise, pan-African solidarity, and lessons learned about health messaging and community mobilization from previous health crises. Yet collaboration has not always been harmonious, as actors have adopted various approaches in their interactions with global health institutions and civil society partnerships, and they have actively debated the use of traditional medicine as a COVID-19 treatment.
This book studies relevant actors and practices of conflict intervention by African regional organizations and their intimate connection to space-making, addressing a major gap regarding what actually happens within and around these organizations.
Based on extensive empirical research, it argues that those intervention practices are essentially spatializing practices, based on particular spatial imaginations, contributing to the continuous construction and formatting of regional spaces as well as to ordering relations between different regional spaces. Analyzing the field of developing practices of conflict intervention by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU), the book contributes a new theory-oriented analytical approach, based on insights from Critical Geography, to study African regional organizations and the complex dynamics of African peace and security. As such, it helps to close an empirical gap with regard to the ‘internal’ modes of operation of African regional organizations as well as the lack of their theorization. It demonstrates that, contrary to most accounts, intervention practices of African ROs have been diverse and complexly inter-related, involving different actors within and around these organizations and are essentially tied to the space-making.
This book will be of key interest to students and scholars of African Politics, Governance, Peace and Security Studies, International or Regional Organizations and more broadly to Comparative Regionalism, International Relations and International Studies.
Free preview material, including the book's introduction, available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/spatializing-practices-regional-organizations-conflict-intervention-jens-herpolsheimer/10.4324/9781003106647
The end of the Cold War was to usher in an era of peace based on flourishing democracies and free market economies worldwide. Instead, new wars, including the war on terrorism, have threatened international, regional, and individual security and sparked a major refugee crisis. This volume of essays on international humanitarian interventions focuses on what interests are promoted though these interventions and how efforts to build liberal democracies are carried out in failing states. Focusing on Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, an international group of contributors shows that best practices of protection and international state-building have not been applied uniformly. Together the essays provide a theoretical and empirical critique of global liberal governance and, as they note challenges to regional and international cooperation, they reveal that global liberal governance may threaten fragile governments and endanger human security at all levels. Indiana University Press, 2016. See http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?cPath=1037_3025_9335&products_id=808208.
This paper explores some of the founding principles of the African Union (AU) and the frameworks devised to implement them. It looks at various doctrinal and practical issues pertaining to either the continent's progress towards an effective and strong continental integration or a repeat of the failings of its predecessor Organisation, the Organization of African Unity. The interlinked principles relating to democracy and the rule of law and human rights and sustainable development have been the main issues of inquiry rather than economic (and monetary), collective security or the African human rights considerations. The inquiry will offer an interdisciplinary and theoretical insight onto the normative and practical dimensions of the integration debate in Africa. By highlighting the tension between liberal and constructivist theories of institutions and various integration strategies as applied to Africa, the paper purports to identify and to critique the achievements made so far and the serious challenges ahead of the AU. It is argued that whilst the progress made thus far is significant, it would be premature to talk of the huge success or complete failure of the decade‐old AU.
The relationship between the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) has at times been characterized by considerable
conflict, mistrust, and tension, often hindering the predictability and conduct of effective peace operations. This article
analyses the challenges facing UN–AU cooperation on peace and security issues and examines their partnerships in various peace
operations. Specific attention is paid to the crucial cases of Somalia and Mali, which exemplify some of the positive and
negative aspects of this relationship. We argue that while great power politics and the international normative context have
played important roles in structuring debates about peace operations in contemporary Africa, so too have two more bottom-up
factors: the specific operational and financial challenges generated by the AU's big missions in Darfur, Somalia, and Mali,
and the organizational cultures and bureaucratic constraints within which both institutions have had to work. Greater focus
on these bottom-up factors could bring significant improvements to the decision-making processes in Addis Ababa and New York,
to operational responses, and to the conduct of peace operations.
Increasingly the UN is ‘subcontracting’ peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations. The ECOMOG intervention in Sierra Leone is an example. Some members of ECOMOG have been accused of violating international humanitarian law. These accusations have not been adequately addressed by ECOMOG nor by the UN. The limited attention paid to this problem by the UN in ‘subcontracted’ operations contrasts with increased concern with respect for international humanitarian law by forces under UN command and control. It is argued that the UN should ensure that ‘subcontracting’ does not lead to lowering standards of international humanitarian law.