Papers Gallery

Chapter Two
Transformation of the Organization of African Unity
to the African Union
1963-2004
The Organizati on of African Unity was founded in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on May 25, 1963 by 31 African leqders countries. Its principal objectives were driven by identity issues and interests, i.e. liberation and integration. On the other hand, we find that it was interested, mainly in the liberation of Africa, especially southern Africa. Thus, in terms of identity, its creation was a major achievement.

Kwame Nkrumah was one of the prominent advocates of African unity on this basis, that is,
“with a view to promoting Pan-Africanism and the African personality, was. He announced to the All-African People’s Conference in Accra in 1958 that Pan-Africanism could be considered to have four main stages: national independence, national consolidation, transnational unity, and economic and social reconstruction. However, due to the emerging ideological and power struggles between newly independent African states in the early 1960s, the OAU did not embrace much of what Nkrumah advocated. ”
Consequently, at its establishement, the OAU faced two main issues: power struggles and the fear of political uncertainty. The former, that was transformed into competing sub-regional blocs, had existed between Nigeria and Ghana, and involved other different countries afterwards. On the other hand, the issue of fear was transformed into an need for protection.
The OAU insisted on securing two main issues, at least: state boundaries established by colonial powers; the sovereignty of each state, which meant non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Consequently, it protected the African leaders when they violated the rights of their people, and those who felt threatened by the different legitimate opposition. Thus, the OAU often preserved dictatorial regimes. There was one exception which was in states controlled by the white minority regimes in southern Africa, Angola, Namibia, and Mozambique.
Apartheid in South Africa still lagged behind most of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) liberalization strategy activities. In aother words, apartheid South Africa was considered as an unwelcomed guest helping to initiate and shape the debates within the OAU.

Governance in Africa was considered an internal problem and external interference was unacceptable. Without modern communication technologies, including faxes and the Internet, violations of rights and repression may go unnoticed by third parties. In addition, the interests of political leaders, the ruling party and the state have combined. Parliaments only served as rubber stamps in the politics of authoritarian leaders. It was assumed that sovereignty was close to the ruler, not the people. In these circumstances, governments systematically violated human rights, political leaders ignored the rule of law and the entire OAU defended them.

At the same time, the Organization of African Unity used the dynamic tension between governance, security and globalization. The term “globalization” was not known until the 1980s. Although Nkrumah was pioneer in discussing the issues of freedom and peace in the international framework, the mqjority of African leaders did not accept Nkrumah’s international plans because they believed it was ambitious to lead the entire continent. Nkrumah insisted that he was
“ready to serve in the political union of free African states under any African leader who could follow the appropriate leadership,” but his counterparts did not believe it was true. Nkrumah insisted that he was “prepared to serve in a political union of free African states under any African leader who was able to follow proper guidance,” but his peers did not believe he was genuine.

Regarding security, although it is a serious problem for the founders of the OAU, they considered it primarily to protect the interests of the State, in particular the territorial integrity, the sovereignty of the State and the protection of the state borders. For this reason, they rejected Nkrumah’s claim that
“no security for African states unless African leaders realized beyond all doubt that salvation for Africa lay in unity.” In addition, the OAU, like the rest of the world, did not link between insecurity and bad governance until the nineties. In some cases, the security that the African leaders themselves sought only contributed to the insecurity of their people.

Section 1: Colonial Policies and their Impact
This section focuses on the role played by colonial politics in the creation of African unity rather than colonialism as such. We can identify three main processes or processes through which colonialism has helped the pan-African cause: the collective humiliation of Africans, the establishment of modern political societies and the universalization of European values.

I.1.a. Humiliating Africans
The humiliation of the African peoples by the colonial powers and their attempts to undermine the African culture led to give them an identity. This identity demanded unity if they wanted to get rid of foreign government and foreign occupation. Therefore, the interests in the liberation of the continent and integration were closely linked to identity. Africans were insulted in different ways. In some parts of Africa, the land was taken from Africans for adoption by white settlers, which was an insult. Some Africans have abandoned the ancestral tombs to make way for the white settlers and their projects. This type of colonialism and abstraction was felt in settlements such as Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Concerning the introduction of European educational systems, it was felt that they brought benefits to Africans. Though, education was part of the effort to introduce and impliment European cultures into Africa, it was accompanied by attempts to discourage certain African cultural practices. This resulted in that the Africans were alienated from some of their roots. Through colonial education Africans were used to deny Africans a history. For example, Professor of History at Oxford, Hugh Trevor Roper, who had credibility in the British colonial office, claimed in the early 1960s that there was no such a thing as African history except “the unedifying gyrations of barbarous tribes.” He argued: “There is only the history of Europeans in Africa. The rest is darkness and darkness is not a subject of history.”

These efforts to deny Africans a history was spread across ethnic boundaries and made Africans aware of their identity and that they were victims because of their colour. In the end, colonialism contributed to the construction of the consciousness of Africanism. The subsequent search for identity and the adoption of concepts like the African personality, negritude, and African renaissance emerged from this sense of cultural neglect and humiliation. These concepts were designed to help people to restore dignity and provided the intellectual solid ground of Pan-Africanism.

In his speech at Freetown, Sierra Leone, in 1893, Edward Blyden made the earliest recorded efforts search for an African identity:
“Honour and love your race. Be yourselves … If you are not yourself, if you surender your personality, you have nothing to give the world. You have no pleasure, no use, nothing which can attract and charm men, for by the suppression of your individuality, you lose your distinctive character.”
To revive traditional African values, the African leaders used the African personality, negritude and African renaissance. They believed that they were based on the consciousness of possessing a commonly shared historical experience.

However, researchers have explained the cultural influence of colonial powers from different angles. For example, Ali Mazrui’s concept of Africa’s triple heritage focuses on the humiliating aspects of colonialism in addition to other dimensions, namely Islam and European values. Mazrui claims that the modern Africa is a product of three cultures: indigenous African, Islamic, and Western. Through the concept of the triple heritage, Mazrui sought to express three types of relationships. These were the relationships between: Islamic values and African civilization; and Islamic values, and Western civilizations then, African civilizations and Western cultures. He stated that these three relationships were keys to understanding much of the African history. By exploring Africa’s triple heritage, Mazrui aimed at broadening the understanding of Africa’s history, and colonial past, mainly.

I.1.b. Establishing Modern Political Communities
Colonialism also laid the foundation to form modern nation-states out of various African ethnic groups. A former Tanzanian President, Julus Nyerere, claimed that colonialism constructed out of African self-conscious group, African states. Mazrui cites Nyerere, who argued that colonialism brought the “sentiment of Africa.” He stated:
“One needs not go into the history of colonisation of Africa, but that colonisation had one significant result. A sentiment was created on the African continent, a sentiment of oneness.”
Due to colonialism, the Ewe, Yoruba, Kikuyii, and Chigga, among others, could not maintain their ethnic identities, and become Ghanaians, Nigerians, Kenyans or Tanzanians, respectively. Adu Boahen has also stated that the newly constituted modern nation-states to replace “the existing innumerable lineage and clan groups. City-states, kingdoms and empires without any fixed boundaries was one positive development.” As a result, state-based nationalism, which is based on identity, was also constructed by colonialism.
Not only did colonialism constitute the modern African state out of disparate ethnic groups, but it also modified the structures of some traditional societies; thus, some ethnic groups that enjoyed higher status were lowered while those who had with lower status were elevated to the top. In some cases, ethnic groups were divided between several states. For example,
“Somalis were split into four countries: Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. The Si-Sotho speakers are found in Lesotho and South Africa, just as the Setswana speakers are found in Botswana and South Africa. In one case, colonialism created a smaller state within a bigger one: Lesotho, an independent state, is completely surrounded by South Africa. One of the fears that helped to shape the OAU was based on these artificial boundaries.”
I.1.c. Introducing European Values to Africa
Among the achievements of colonialism was the spread of European values to become universal. The colonial powers did this by different means: transplanting many European ideas, and concepts, such as territorial integrity and state sovereignty in Africa and other parts of the non-European world. “By claiming that colonialism transplatned this form of sovereignty into Africa, we do not mean that Africa had no sense of sovereignty before colonialism.” In this respect, the type of sovereignty that went hand in hand with the transfer of African colonies into independent states was a different conception of sovereignty that was shaped by the values and conditions of Europe.
While the African states struggled for independence on the basis of the self-determination of people, the African leaders has not given much importqnce or focussed on citizenship. It was this negative view toward democracy and human rights that shaped the African leadres’ understanding of sovereignty. Furthermore, the OAU was determined to preserve and maintain this type of sovereignty.
Different interpretations of sovereignty can be distinguished: juridical, empirical, and popular. The first is based on the idea that the international law has authority over the state. Since the African states are members of the United Nations and other international organizations, they are subjected to international law. It is the international society that gives juridical sovereignty to states. Sa;uel Makinda stated that
“State’s juridical sovereignty can be taken away in case the international society decides that a particular state should not remain sovereign. For example, when hegemonic powers decided, Taiwan lost its juridical sovereignty in 1971, because it was not in the interest of global security to have Taiwan as a member of the UN. It is ironical that Somalia that is unable to govern itself still occupies a seat in the UN and maintain the juridical sovereignty. On the other hand, Taiwan is not a member of the UN.

The emperical sovereignty is the second type. It is based on the notion that states have the right to exercise control over the people, resources, within the borders of the state. Due to the country’s capacity to manage its affairs, empirical sovereignty is demonstrated. For example, Somalia lost its empirical sovereignty in the early 1990s, when no government could establish order.
“Whenever states talk of their state sovereignty, they refer to juridical or empirical sovereignty, or both. Robert Jackson has referred to state sovereignty in Africa as “negative” or quasi sovereignty because many African countries lack the empirical dimension to sovereignty.”
Popular sovereignty which is the third type of sovereignty, is based on the understanding that all people are equal and entitled to fundamental freedoms, and that governments exercice control over them only with their consent.
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General told the General Assembly in September 1999 that by popular sovereignty he meant ‘the fundamental freedom of each individual, enshrined in the Charter of the UN and subsequent international treaties’
Consequently, popular sovereignty can be understood as recognition of human rights. This leads to the the fact that human rights and state sovereignty need to be in harmony. Popular sovereignty is exercised by citizens in their relationship with their rulers. Thus, it depends on the role of civil society and the existing government structure in a particular country. Popular sovereignty is determined by citizens’ ability to control their governments’ activities and reduce governments’ power and arbitrariness. Although African countries achieved independence on the basis of self-determination, which is universally regarded as a collective right, many African leaders did not respect this aspect of the equation
From Pan-Africanism to Liberation and Integration
Pan-Africaism was clearly formed at the beginning of the 20th century as a movement of people of African descent. In the second half of the 20th century, African governments dominated the movement and excluded people. Thanks to the constitutional law of the African Union, people began to slowly rehabilitate themselves, and African unity has increasingly become a movement for governments and individuals to shape the future of the continent. But what is Pan-Africanism? Like most social science concepts, Pan-Africanism has no precise definition.
Colin Liegum calls for “the belief in the uniqueness and spiritual unity of the blacks and the recognition of their right to self-determination in Africa and to be treated with equal dignity throughout the world.” Legum explains that Pan-Africanism can be seen at three levels: as part of the reconstruction of identity: the pursuit of human dignity and equality at the global level; and as a movement that will lead to self-government. In this context, the African continent has focused mainly on the issues of interest and identity on which the Organization of African Unity is based: the integration of liberalization and integration.

Liberalization is linked to the standards of self-determination and human dignity. It will also lead to State sovereignty. That is why Nkrumah linked pan-Africanism to identity and freedom through the concept of African personality. He argued: “The spirit of a people can only flourish in freedom. When the liberation and unification of Africa is completed, the African personality will find full expression and be meaningfully projected.” Nkrumah also viewed Pan-Africanism as a road to global power. He claimed that a divided Africa would remain weak, while a united Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world.
But when many African states gained their independence, the African Union split off its roots in the Caribbean and the United States. Ali Mazroui puts several factors in this chapter. Firstly, independence changed the African unity from people’s movement to the movement of governments. Second, after the independent government, African countries acted on the US government instead of human rights activists and black politicians in the United States. Thirdly, the African states were concerned about the need to establish an organization across the continent. That is why the overall African integration strategy aimed at achieving unity and continental unity distinguishes African origin from their Caribbean and American roots. Over time, independent African states became more and more African and separated from the African unity of the peoples of Africa.

According to Nkrumah, identity, which was expressed in various forms, generated the ideas, aspirations, and ambitions that animated Pan-Africanism. Nkrumah used the term African personality to assert the resilience of African traditional values, and to demonstrate to the world that Africa was committed to global peace and freedom. He, for instance, argued:
“For too long in our history, Africa bas spoken through the voices of others. Now what I have called the African personality in international affairs will have a chance of making its proper impact and will let the world know it through the voices of Africa’s own sons.”
In attempt to globalise the African liberation strategy, Nkrumah called on all countries around the world to participate in the liberation of southern Africa. He argued that:

“As long as there were people in any part of the world who had not been liberated, there could be no genuine freedom and peace in the world. He posited that the “indivisibility of peace was staked on the indivisibility of freedom.”
The OrganiOAU followed the African Liberation Strategy long after Nkrumah passed. In addition, it has been ensured that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) will focus on South Africa, in particular, South Africa is on its agenda. Due to the policies of apartheid and massive military and economic power has been the question of South Africa on a permanent basis by the OAU in the 1960s, the anti-apartheid policies of the OAU was the glue that kept the organization together.

As shown below, the OAU was the product of concessions between African nationalists who wanted to establish united nations in Africa and those who did not want to relinquish their newly acquired sovereignty. Nkrumah expressed concern that Africa’s ability to self-regulate and pacify itself is threatened by foreign interference. The appeasement was based on the desire to see Africans find African solutions to their problems. The idea of ??self-appeasement is a way of paying that is responsible for protecting people and nations in Africa. That was behind the establishment of the OAU.

II.1. The OAU and the Policy of Compromises
As mentioned below, the OAU Charter can be seen as a compromise between African leaders who supported the association and those seeking a flexible partnership. By stopping efforts to create a union, those who seek a flexible partnership won the debate. The debate between the two groups showed that the OAU arose after a power struggle between independent African states rather than African activists. In its 40-year history was driven by the same fears that led to power struggles in the early 1960s, which had a major impact on state borders, territorial integrity and state sovereignty. In many of its existence, the organization acted as a protection club for the same statistical principles.

II.2. OAU Facing Colonial Heritage
At the beginning of the 20th century, most of the borders of Africa were established, announcing the configuration of future states. These borders, drawn up at the will of the colonial powers, have ignored the ethnic, linguistic, religious and political realities of the African peoples. Negligence and ignorance of the geographical situation and the traditional political divisions gave rise to a series of difficulties which the commissioners of abortion were the first to take up. They sometimes took into account the impassable natural limits, but could also draw straight lines and call them boundaries. Lord Salisbury, himself one of the great African
At the beginning of the 20th century, most of Africa’s borders were established and the formation of future states was announced. These borders, developed after the will of the colonial powers, ignored the ethnic, linguistic, religious and political realities of the African peoples. Negligence and ignorance of geographical position and traditional political divisions have led to a series of difficulties encountered by abortion commissioners. Sometimes they take natural limits that are not impenetrable, but they can also draw straight lines and label boundaries. Lord Salisbury, said:
“We began to draw maps of the regions where the white man had never set foot. We have distributed mountains, rivers and lakes, barely embarrassed by this small difficulty, where we never knew exactly where these mountains, rivers, or lakes were.”
Since the formation of regional groups collected less homogeneous entities, more than 177 peoples or ethnic groups were found in several states. Different boundaries have been identified, and even hostile communities, and are often overloaded with more explosive forces, constantly threatened with degradation.

The subsequent movements of colonialism have created new boundaries born of division in accordance with foreign political and economic interests. It represents the maximum line, a new geopolitical reality in Africa, marked a rigid political space, as well as an exclusive brand identity management. It is now connected with an area bordered by recognized borders that power in Africa.

“Thus, colonized peoples lived the reality of dividing lines dividing consanguineous groups, removing them from their territories of rituals, culture, hunting and fishing.” The colonized, especially in the French colonies, by using these delimitations to escape repression, to compulsory benefits and to the payment of taxes.

Because of these constraints, they deliberately ignored them in order to take refuge in the English colonies, where the system of exploitation was more flexible, and to join allies or relatives who remained in this respect according to ancient practices. Through these population movements throughout colonial history, borders have remained in many cases, data not really internalized in the face of the weight of ethnic solidarity between the populations.

Because of the restrictions imposed, they were ignored for the purpose of resorting to colonies, where the asylum system was more flexible, and two strong partners or partners in this regard were a very old practice. Through the population movements of the tablets through colonial history, the borders were in many cases, and the data were not really absorbed in light of the weight of ethnic solidarity among States.During independence, new African countries faced conflicts in border disputes. The number of border disputes was impressive, about thirty-two. Aware of their fragility in their countries, limited by artificial borders and the risk of maintaining such a situation, some African leaders have launched the question of the colonial regional process. These lawyers believe in the law that postcolonial Africa will take responsibility for mistakes in the colonial arangements. On the regional basis of the African countries born of a colonial agreement, it was not necessary to take into account the specific characteristics that strengthen unity. The condemnation of this division, which harmed the stability of African States, has placed it in front of the colonial frontiers in order of priority.

“For the territorial bases of the African States, born of the colonial arrangements, did not take into account the specific characteristics that were essential to social cohesion and the strengthening of unity within them. To denounce this division which is detrimental to the sustainable viability of the African States, they have made the dismantling of colonial borders a priority concern. It is in this sense that the African leaders, in favor of questioning the borders, gathered within the “Casablanca Group” wanted a rethinking of the African borders in 1963. Other leaders, on the other hand, wanted to maintain the route inherited from colonization. For this second group of leaders, called the “Monrovia Group,” the territorial status quo had as its objective the stability of the colonial frontiers, making it possible to secure the confines of the newly independent African States.”
This was to consolidate the nations and finally to transform them into nation-states. Therefore, it was prudent and careful to maintain the colonial territorial patrimony to maintain peace between the states and the possibility of real development. This is essentially the essence of the lawyers’ argument for the territorial status quo.

Map 1: African National Independence
114300224790

Souece; Website built by Cheryl J. Mason-Middleton, BFA. 2006. Copyright
In the early years of Africa’s independence, one of the greatest concerns for the founders was the question of determining the limits inherited from colonialism. The question of travel: Should the colonial path be challenged and pave the way for insecurity and instability or acceptance and a climate of peace in the relationship between States? In this climate of violent debate on the border of the Conference of African States of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity in Cairo chose to “respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state and the inescapable right to an independent existence.” To clarify this provision, a special resolution (AHG / RES resolution, known as the inviolability of the African border, July 21, 1964. He explained “solemnly declares that all Member States undertake to respect the list” on the time of independence “consists of a ban on Member States to express certain requirements The challenge is to prevent conflicts because of crossing the border in Africa. Qccording to the African leaders, this was a general concern. On the one hand, any external aggression from another, on the other hand, and on the other hand, any secessionist movement coming from within which could call into questioning the borders resulting from independence.

II.3. Regional Political Groups
Before the establishment of the Organization of African Unity in 1963, the independent African states were divided into three political groups: Brazzaville, Casablanca and Monrovia. The first group consists of 12 French-speaking countries, which met for the first time in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, in October 1960: Benin (for example, Dahome), Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta), Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville Madagascar) The meeting was celebrated by the President of Côte d’Ivoire, Felix Houphouet-Bognier, who wanted to mediate in the Francophone countries in the Algerian War without antagonizing France, and under the leadership of Sikou Toure, Guinea condemned the meeting and Togo refused to attend. In Brazzaville in December in 1960. The Brazzaville Group allied with France in the Algerian conflict, against the communist intervention in Africa and wanted to stay with France. The Group also supported the United Nations policy on Congo-Kinshasa (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). This policy gave the impression that African countries needed A rapprochement through economic cooperation, not political integration.

On the other hand, the Casablanca group met for the first time with eight countries in Casablanca, Morocco, in January 1961: Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Libya, Mali and Morocco. Seven other countries were invited to attend, but refused to attend: Ethiopia, Gambia, Liberia, Nigeria, Togo, Tunisia and Sudan. No group from Brazzaville was invited to this meeting. The Group adopted the African Charter of Casablanca, which affirmed its determination to promote the triumph of freedom throughout Africa and to achieve its unity. The Casablanca Group rejected the United Nations policy on the Congo, in particular because of the way in which Prime Minister Patrick Lumumba was treated. The group supported Algeria’s struggle for independence and called for political unity and economic cooperation. The group also supported Morocco, which submitted regional claims in Mauritania.

The Casablanca group proposed a federal government based on the mobilization of resources along socialist lines. Nkrumah insisted that
“For economic unity to be effective it must be accompanied by political unity. He posited that the two are inseparable, each necessary for the future greatness of the continent, and the full development of its resources.”
Nkrumah repeatedly emphasized the socialist approach of Africa’s development:
“Full economic and social development in Africa can only be accomplished within the optimum zone of development which is the entire African continent, and under the direction of an All- African Union government pursuing policies of scientific socialism. Until then, the forces of reaction wilI continue to block progress which threatens the basic pillars of their positions of privilege.”
He proposed practical ways of how to operate a government in the United States of Africa. He claimed that the sovereignty of some States will not give up in full, but some of its functions, such as foreign policy, fall within the jurisdiction of the continental government. Some African leaders saw this as a threat to the independence of their State and territorial integrity.

The third group, the Monrovia group, was consisted from 20 countries and attended a conference in the Liberian capital Monrovia in May 1961: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo and Tunisia. A member of the Casablanca group, Libya, attended the meeting. Sudan accepted the invitation but changed its position when it learned that Mauritania would participate. The Monrovia and Brazzaville groups had similar views on Mauritania, which they believed had the right to an independent state. They also supported the United Nations policy in the Congo.

The Monrovia Group agreed on several principles that were subsequently published as the Lagos Charter for Africa and Malagasy after a meeting in the same countries (including Congo-Kinshasa) in Lagos, Nigeria, in January 1962. It then formed the basis of the OAU. Makinda and wafulu stated them:
“1. Absolute equality and sovereignty of African states.

2. The right of each African state to exist and not to be annexed by another.

3. Voluntary union of one state with another.

4. Non-interference in the domestic affairs of African states.

5. No state to harbor dissidents from another state.

The above principles revolved around one institution: sovereignty. Other significant institutions, such as democracy and the rule of law, did not concern the protagonists.”
Though the differences between the three subregional groups, the OAU has become a reqlity because it has joined the above mentioned groups on other subjects, as proposed by the OAU Charter and its subsequent activities.
III.1. OAU Charter
The OAU Charter was compoed of 33 articles that defined tits goals, principles and bodies. OAU’s main bodies were the Heads of States and Governments, the Council of Ministers,and the General Secretariat; Special Committees: The Specialized Commissions, the Commission of Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, and the Liberation Committee.
The objectives set out in Article 2 (1) reflected the states dimensions of the Pan-African aspirations for liberation and integration, including the promotion and solidarity between states, defending state sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, in addition to the promotion of international cooperation in conformity with the UN Charter. However, the OAU Charter also referred to people-centered activities, such as the commitment to coordinate and intensify cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the people of Africa and to promote international cooperation in the Universal Declaration of human rights. Almost any African leader observed these people-centered activities. In fact, despite the commitment to defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most African states neglected respcting human rights.

The OAU, and in particular its Liberation Committee, pursued its objective of eradicating colonialism. This objective was so decisive for the survival of the OAU that, after the liberation of South Africa (end of apartheid) in 1994, the days of the organization were counted. It was fitting that its successor AU was launched in South Africa.The OAU is governed by seven statistical principles introduced in Article 3 of the Statute:
” This included the sovereignty of all member states, non-participation in the international affairs of the member states, respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the indefinite condemnation of political assassination and the subversive activities on the part of the neighboring states, the totalization commitment. Liberation of all African territories and confirmation of the policy of non-alignment.”
The first four principles correspond to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations and reflect the standards of international law. In total, these seven principles reflected the struggle for power and fear that existed in Africa in the early 1960s. For this reason they acted as insurance or mutual safeguards.

When the OAU summit in Cairo confirmed the principle of inviolability of borders inherited from colonial times, the protection of territorial integrity revised in 1964. At the top of the OAU in Accra in the twentieth century, Nkrumah and his supporters proposed a Pan-African executive, but those who wanted to maintain their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The fact that the OAU has devoted much of its time to condemning racial discrimination in southern Africa reflects two things: the commitment to end the humiliating the Africans and the hidden fear of South Africa. Much of the OAU’s support in the struggle for liberation in South Africa was carried out through the Liberation Committee, which was based in Dar Essalam, Tanzania. The work of the Liberal Committee was mainly diplomatic and the UN Security Council approved its objectives when it met for the first time in Addis Ababa in 1972. However, many African countries did not support the Liberation Committee at all. It was closely identified with Tanzania’s foreign policy. and other leading countries such as Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
As Gilbert Khadiagala has observed, “the frontline states played an important role in forging African and global consensus about the end of minority rule in southern Africa”.

The OAU was determined to put an end to colonialism, but often there was no response to subsequent problems that could impede the realization of freedom. It had a dispute resolution mechanism that included negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration, but this mechanism rarely worked effectively. For example, the OAU admitted Angola in 1975, but failed to find a solution to the tragedy that took place in the former Portuguese colony. In fact, only the Angolan civil war at one point paralyzed the Assembly of the OAU. Finally, it was addressed through the auspices of the UN in the 1990s. Among the controversial issues that damaged the OAU in the 1980s was the admission of Western Sahara (Democratic Saharan Republic) as a member of the Western Sahara. 1980. Subsequently, the admission of Western Sahara divided the organization between pro-Morocco supporters and Polisario supporters, two The summits in 1982 were aborted due to the massive boycott of Moroccan sympathizers and the withdrawal of Morocco from the Organization in 1984. This problem, that explains the fact that Morocco has not joined the AU, remains unresolved until 2017.

III.2. Regional Economic Groups
Some OAU weaknesses have been demonstrated on two levels: the fact that the Charter did not explain the OAU’s relationship with subregional organizations, officially referred to as Regional Economic Communities (REC); and the OAU’s failure to meet the economic goals and principles laid down in its charter. On one side, the weakness was apparently due to the supervision of those who formulated the OAU Charter. Otherwise, the weakness was evident due to the inability to fulfill the organization’s mandate. These two weaknesses again showed their inability to exploit the complex relationships between globalization, security and ability to govern.

Over 40 years of its activity, the OAU existed together with the REC series, including the East African Community (EAC); The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), South African Development Community (SADC), originally known as the South African Development Co-ordination Committee; and the Intergovernmental Office for Development (IGAD), originally known as the intergovernmental desertification and development office. These organizations had their own identity and interests as a result of their subregions. One of them, EAC, existed before the emergence of OAU, but the others were created in the 70’s and 80’s. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (CEPA) also existed before the establishment of the OAU.

Though it was in accordance with the protocol that served as a diplomatic tool for the OAU to formalize relations with the REC, the OAU Chart did not indicate its relations with the EC even if; the latter were not branches of the OAU. In addition, the EC could deal directly with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which in theory meant that it could represent the OAU in important hemispheric security initiatives. However, the OAU was formalizing the relationship with seven RECs at the time of withdrawal. (The OAU / AU / REC connections are explained in more details in the following chapter.)
The OAU Chart clearly speaks of the organization’s role in economic development. For example, the preamble to the Chart refers to the OAU’s responsibility for economic development. Article 2 obliges the Member States to coordinate and harmonize their policies in the field of economic cooperation, including transport and communications. It also requires members to coordinate and harmonize their policies in the field of education and cultural cooperation, as well as in other areas such as health, sanitation and business cooperation. Considering that those who, after rejecting the idea of ??Nkrumah, influenced the direction of the letter, believed that African unity could only be achieved through economic cooperation, why does the OAU place only a small emphasis on economic problems?
The inability to deal with economic and development problems meant that the OAU was not prepared to follow globalization. This was partly due to the lack of specialized knowledge that the OAU appeared to deql with the impact of the economic decision-making process on the Court of Auditors, which, like the OAU, had its seat in Addis Ababa. Initially, competition between the OAU and the Court of Auditors occurred in the case of major economic initiatives for Africa, but after some time the OAU appeared to be guiding the main OECD route. However, the Organization participated in negotiations on major economic initiatives, including discussions on new international economic governance and the Lomé Convention. Another important economic initiative was taken by the OAU in the late 1970s and early 1980s was the Lagos Action Plan, but did not reach its objectives. In the economic sphere, the OAU would use the dynamic tensions between globalization, security and administration, but this has not happened. Just as the OAU was the work of its day, the successor to the organization, AU, is a product of its time. Without the changes that took place after the cold war, African countries would fail to establish the AU.

Section 2: The African Union Facing the Challenges of the “New World Order” (2002)
The birth of the UA in July 2002 raised a number of questions. What were the main factors for its creation? Can the UA meet the challenges of globalization, security and management? Is the organization guided by the agenda or program of statistics aimed at satisfying human aspirations and needs? The identification of problems and new interests promoted the founding of the AU. In a sense, the UA is a product of the debates of the OAU, but in another sense, it is a response to globalization and democratization that marked the changes after the Cold War in Africa and around the world. As early as 1961, Kwame Nkrumah convened a similar organization in structure and ambitions for the AU, but most other African leaders rejected it. However, as one analyst has suggested,”..the tide that necessitated the construction of the AU was the end of the Cold War, globalization and the need for a fundamental change of the iniquitous international economic system.”
Nkrumah said that weakness of Africa is referred to external manipulation. It can become one of the greatest forces for the good of the world if it is united. The former president of the Sahrawi Arab Republic Mohammed Abdelaziz affirmed that “there is no place for the weak in this new and daring world” as for Nkrumah. In response to the reality of the New World Order, African leaders sought to recreate their identity and interests by establishing an organization with ambitious goals and structures that would require considerable skills, operational capacity and international goodwill to succeed. When the OAU was founded in 1963, the shadow of apartheid in South Africa was debated among the delegates because the main interest that unites them is liberation. The liberation of South Africa in 1994 eliminated one of the pillars on which the OAU was built.
Recently, South Africa was liberated, which was the seat of the summit established by its successor. If the struggle for power between Ghana and Nigeria formed political debates before the establishment of the OAU, there would be rivalries between the regional powers of Africa, especially in Libya. Nigeria and South Africa surrounded the UA uprising. For a detailed discussion of the issues raised at the beginning of this chapter, this analysis is divided into sections. The first refers to the records of the OAU, the second analyzes the political climate after the end of the Cold War, which gave impetus to the change. The third examines the objectives of the AU, while the fourth examines its principles. The fifth section deals with the bodies of the UA, while the last section examines the relationship between UA and REC.

Legacies Bequeathed by the OAU to the AU
In the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War and globalization forced the African countries to recognize structural weaknesses that prevented the OAU from effectively responding to finding solutions to conflicts in the state. It has now become clear that Western countries and the UN Security Council do not address Africa’s problems, especially security issues. For these reasons, the 1990 OAU Summit decided to outline the political and socio-economic situation in Africa and the fundamental changes in the world. This statement created a framework where African leaders committed themselves to cooperate on peaceful and prompt resolution of conflicts.

Their involvement resulted in the 1993 Cairo Declaration, which established the OAU Mechanism for the Prevention, Management and Resolution of Conflicts. Thanks to this new mechanism, the OAU reacted to various conflicts, including Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Comoros, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ethiopian-Eritrean War, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone. OAU’s inadequacy and structural inability led to the assumption that Africa needs a new organization that could take risks and responsibilities to promote development, peace and security. In this connection, the extraordinary OAU Summit in Sirte in Libya approved in September 1999 the creation of the AU. A Constitutional Treaty establishing the Union was signed at the OAU summit in Lomé, Togo, in July 2000.

The OAU has left many legacies to the UA, some of which are discussed here. Some of the agency’s rules and objectives are completely different from the OAU principles, but others have only undergone cosmetic changes. If the liberation of the continent, completed by the transition of South Africa to democracy in 1994, is considered the most important achievement of the OAU, its balance has largely fused because it could not free Africa from poverty disease, mismanagement, and dependence on Western economic assistance.
During the OAU period, the African countries could not only deal with dictators, but could also be used as an obsession. The African Union has the inevitable task of enforcing the law and economic policy. The problem with the disputed state is a major problem, but Morocco’s position in Western Sahara is an exception. In relation to borders, the institution has the status of the internal affairs of the African Union. Article 4 (h) and 4 (j) allows the AU to intervene in a Member State “in relation to serious circumstances”. According to art. 23 of the Constitutive Act, the AU may also impose sanctions on a member of the Union.”
The OAU protected some of the worst dictators in the world, such as Idi Amin in Uganda, who presided over the OAU from 1975 to 1976. He killed thousands of Ugandans. Other dictators served as presidents of the OAU, Mengistu Haile Mariam Etiopeia and Mobutu Sese Seko of the DRC (former Zaire), Moussa Traore Mali, Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria and Djaafar Numeiry of Sudan. The AU also inherited several unresolved internal crises, which tested the credibility of the locals and the state of reconstruction in Somalia, long-term problems in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (despite the presidential elections of 2006) and the social crises in Zimbabwe.
The Political Climate for the African Union
Some of the factors that contributed t the creation of the AU at the end of the war in Cold War were the recognition of the globalization of power, the dominance of the neo-liberal economic ideology, the growing demand for respect for human rights and the transparency of the civil society organizations, the growing popularity of the liberals. Democratic principles and personal rivalries of some African political leaders. In view of these factors, the EU must be well equipped to apply the complex relations between globalization, security and management to achieve its objectives.

There was rivalry among the three political personalities: Muammar Gaddati of Libya, with his rediscovery of Pan-African ideals; Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, partly due to the location of political and economic land in the continent and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, also due to the location of the political and economic situation in his country, the reintegration of the African Renaissance and its economic initiatives through the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The rivalry between Nigeria and South Africa was visible because of the ambition to occupy permanent seats on the Security Council for the planned reform of the Security Council, which had greatly contributed to the establishment of the African Union and NEPAD.

Gaddafi had successfully pursued several pan-Arab projects during the Cold War. He took power in 1969 after of King Idris, who participated in the group of Casablanca. Gaddafi also called for the African Political Union in the early nineties. In his 30-year term, He also aimed at building nuclear weapons. At the end of the Cold War, Gaddafi took place for maneuvers on the nuclear issue, and was considering surrendering. The implementation of the Pan-African project seemed an attractive project to control the regional powers.

South Africa also tried to obtain the nuclear power in the late 1960s and developed a nuclear weapons program in the late 1980s, “but after the end of the Cold War and the renewed liberation pressures, the White Minority Government discussed whether nuclear weapons would be passed on to the black regime. Therefore, the nuclear weapons program was abolished before the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in July 1991. When Mbekbek became president in 1999, South Africa had abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions.”
Both Gaddafi and Mbeki emphasised the principles of Pan-Africanism qns rennaissance. However, Mbeki tried to satisfy the concepts of the 1960s critics of Nkrumah, who sought African unity through economic cooperation. NEPAD, with support for a peer review mechanism, has been considered a suitable management tool for indebted countries in Africa. In this context, South Africa’s initiatives aim to exploit the dynamic tensions between globalization, security and governance in favor of Africa.

In this political atmosphere fort-three African leaders met in the extraordinary OAU Summit in Libya in September 1999. They decided to found, in conformity with the OAU Charter and the 1999 Abuja Treaty, a new organization. The process moved quickly, and the Constitutive Act of the AU was adopted during the 2000 Lomé summit. After one yea, another extraordinary summit was held at Sirte in March 2001. Forty African political leaders signed the AU birth.

Some analysts described the official launching of the AU in Durban on July 8, 2002, as “an array of personalities representing African ruling elite, from the reprobates to the respected, from heroes to villains, and from the eccentric to the power-drunk demagogues.”
There was an obvious rivalry between M’beki and Gaddafi, based on the fact that South Africa is considered a regional superpower, whereas Gaddafi preferred hegemony instead of a union based on economic cooperation.

“Thus, within the AU, Gaddafi sought to establish hegemony in Africa, warranted closer examination. Critics expressed Gaddafi’s interest in the AU against NEPAD, which is M’beki’s initiative. Some of Gaddafi’s critics, favoring South Africa, argued that for the AU to succeed, Gaddali needed to allow a leader “from a country grounded in the principles of democracy to pick up the mantle.”
Africa had to choose between Gaddafi’s vision of a “United States of Africa” and combining NEPAD and the “African Renaissance.” Analysing the two leaders’ projects, one would deduce:
“that Gaddafi’s dream was to see a continental government, one African military force, uniform trade and foreign policies, and one leader representing all the African states in dealing with the rest of the world. This was Nkrumah’s dream.” Whereas, “M’beki’s mission was to create a continent ruled by like-minded African democrats who shared his goals of competitive markets, technological advancement, progressing economics, and industrious populations.”
But in profound terms, both Gaddafi and Mbeki took Nkrumah’s views. They were interested in making big plans for the development of the continent. Since Mbeki, organized by the AU Summit, he has become President of the Union. This helped to establish a connection between the Renaissance and NEPAD. He intended to go beyond the ideas of the Casablanca, Monrovia and Brazzaville groups since the early sixties. While the independent African states adopted the pan-African economy, South Africa led the most ambitious pan-African ideas.
The Western World Attitude towards the AU Creation
As an external factor, the United States played an indirect role in the creation of the AU. This procedure dates back to November 1993 when the USA helped with the provision of infrastructure to establish an African mechanism to avoid conflicts and find solutions. In addition, Washington shared the principles and standards of the OAU for peacekeeping operations. As a result, the US administration issued the conflict resolution laws in Africa at the end of 1994, “providing for U.S. financial and technical support of the conflict resolution mechanism and authorized funding to support the OAU efforts at conflict resolution.” This support was not to last long due to the relationship between OUA and Gaddafi, who was accused of using the policy of terror and military adventures abroad.

When Libya became an enemy to the Western world, Gaddafi moved to South Africa to make allience with the liberation movement, such as the African National Congress in South Africa. He therefore emphasized his participation in OAU. When Gaddafi began to exert greater influence, the United States responded by reducing its relationship with the organization. When the Western world sanctioned Gaddafi, the OAU was the first regional organization to oppose. In addition, former South African President Nelson Mandella played a diplomatic role in handling the Lockerbie problem. When Gaddafi had decided to pay compensation to victims of the Lockerbie bombing, sanctions were lifted in August 2003 after more than a decade. As a result, the United States and Britain did not prevent the formation of an ambitious AU.

Western European countries that do rqrely listen to the protests of human rights organizations in many African countries protesting against human rights violations are even beginning to support local forces that need reform based on democratic and liberal principles in these countries. The potential for successful reforms and transitions in many parts of Africa requires new African leadership to replace the OAU with more democratic and transparent organizations. Secondly, civil society organizations in the new democracies demanded responsibility from the OAU. They have been looking for organizations that respect women’s rights, human rights and sustainable development.

Objectives and Principles of the African Union
Article 3 of the Constitutive Act establishes the objectives that articulate the agenda and emphasize the priorities of the Union. Many of these objectives require a deep use of the complex relationship between globalization, security and governance that will be carried out successfully. Unlike its predecessors, that only sought the unity between the African states, the AU is committed to building a strong and united Africa, as well as to create partnerships between governments and companies to achieve greater unity and solidarity among countries and the African people.The institution to which this responsibility has been assigned, the Economic and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), which includes the organizations of the African civil society. It is hoped that the African people will take it through the election of the members of the Pan-African Parliament and contribute to the work of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Humanitarian Aid Commission, more influence on continental trends and policies. and Human Rights (ACHPR) and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). However, it remains to be seen how much power States will transfer to people through these agencies. The priorities for the operationalization of the structures and agencies of the AU can serve as guidance. For example, the ECOSOCC adopted its Statutes in 2004, it has not yet played an active role in representing the votes of the people in the AU who make the decisions as originally planned.

The AU Constitutive Act is committed to defending the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the Member States. The fact that the defense of the sovereignty of a State is of great importance is Article 3 (b), while the promotion of human rights and good governance at the bottom, Article 3 (h), aggravates the statistical ambitions of the UA. The AU also proposes to promote Africa’s economic, social and cultural integration in accordance with Article 3 (j). The Constitutional Act also refers to the promotion and protection of the common position of Africa on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples. As a precursor, the AU is committed to promoting international cooperation in the light of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The above objectives do not essentially differ significantly from those of the OAU.

However, the AU also pledges to pursue other issues that would benefit the people, as opposed to the states. For instance, it aims to promote peace, security, and stability on the Continent. If the OAU organs defined peace and security primarily in terms of the protection of state boundaries, the AU approach would not differ much from that. However, if the former defined peace and security primarily in terms of the protection of the people and the preservation of their values, norms, and institutions, the AU approach would be significantly different.
“The way the AU approached the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan between 2003 and early 2007 suggested that state interests took priority over the responsibility to protect suffering humanity.”
The AU is also committed to promoting democratic principles and institutions, public participation and good governance. This is a significant deviation from the OAU, which did not seriously take democratic leadership. Since its inception, the AU has assumed an increasingly important role in observation and monitoring of elections. However, there have been criticisms of the results of some election reports from the UA. One of the most unpleasant moments for the Union was in May 2005 when it refused to observe the election in Ethiopia but supported the results of the election, which was considered abuse. As a result of the Declaration of the Vice-President, who confirmed that the election was “free and fair”, unrestrained days have pumped into Addis Ababa and caused many deaths and thousands of arrests.

The goal of promoting democracy and good governance can be of paramount importance when the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) becomes a body with full legislative powers, and lawmakers choose in ordinary adult elections, and when the APRM becomes mandatory, not voluntary. PAP has only advisory and advisory powers and consists of legislators appointed by national parliaments. However, it is expected that the PAP will take over the legal and supervisory powers for 2009. So far, this has not yet been done.

The following objective of the AU is to promote and protect human rights in conformity with the African Charter on Human Rights and Human Rights and other human rights instruments. However, the continuation of human rights abuses in Darfur and Zimbabwe in 2007 raised questions about the AU’s ability to pursue this goal in a good manner.

In addition, the AU aims to create the necessary conditions for Africa to play a greater role in the global economy and to promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels. It also aims to promote Africa’s development by promoting research in all areas, including science and technology through a deartment headed by a Commissioner for Human Resources, Science and Technology and through the relevant technical committees concerned. Achieving this goal is crucial for the sustainable development of Africa. In fact, science, technology and innovation are so important that Africa can not effectively meet many of its goals without them. However, there is little evidence that Africa is investing adequately in research and knowledge creation.

In general, commissioners and agencies responsible for achieving the goals in the African Union can use the comprehensive relationship between globalization, security and governance. Whether it is in the interests of citizens and society as opposed to states depends on their views on security as long as they allow non-state actors to participate in decision-making. It is very important that globalization can be controlled and controlled for the benefit of humanity.

The AU’s prininciples, as laid out in Article 4 of the Constitutive Act, can be broadly categorized into four categories: traditional principles adopted from the OAU, good governance and social justice, peace and security, and socio-economic development.

The traditional principles adopted by the OAU, such as equality between Member States, and respect for the borders that exist befoer independence, are based on the old-fashioned principle of sovereignty. The radical deviation, however, is that while the Member States are prohibited from meddling in internal affairs, the AU is entitled in a Member State, on the basis of a decision of the Assembly, to serious circumstances such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity to intervene, to stop committing crimes against humanity, but only the assembly can approve such interventions. The Member States also have the right to ask the Union to restore peace and security.

The faiure of restoring peace in Somalia despite the massive UN intervention in 1993-1995 and the genocide estimated by a million people in Rwanda was a traumatic experience for Africa. By adopting Article 4 H and Article 4 J, the AU was the first organization in the world to have such a mandate. Article 4 H was designed to resolve the serious circumstances of collapsed states that did not have structures for the protection of civilians against the devastating nature of this collapse. Although Article 4 J should support weak states that could not protect their citizens against imminent danger. These articles were considered a radical deviation from the OAU’s non-intervention principle.

The principles of governance and social justice in relation to the participation of African people the Union actions represent a significant improvement. These principles also concern the promotion of self-esteem, gender equality and social justice. They should promote respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law, good governance and the sanctity of human life. Union condemns and rejects impunity and political murder, acts of terrorism and subversion, and unconstitutional changes by governments. Through the APRM, founded by NEPAD, African leaders have volunteered to see their performance in “policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and faster regional integration on the continent.” It is based on the principle that the African leaders at the first session of the AU summit are committed to adopting the principles and core values ??of democracy and political, economic and corporate governance
The peace and security principles of the AU relate to the “estabishment of a common defence policy, peaceful resolution of conflicts among member states, and the prohibition of the use of force or threat to use force among member states.” With the establishment of the AU as a replacement for the OAU, African leaders realized that the resolution of conflicts in Africa represents a major obstacle to the continent’s socio-climatic development and peace, security and stability which are requirements prior to Africa’s development and integration agenda. The idea of linking the security agenda with socio-economic development suggests that security was not created primarily by tradition. However, it is not clear if the AU has the means and commitment to implement this comprehensive security approach. As will be seen later in the implementation of the peace and security agenda, the AU has focused its resources and efforts, in particular, on conflict management and not on conflict prevention and post-conflict peace.

The principle of the AU’s socio-economic development is contained in Article 4, of the Constitutive Act. However, the Constitution takes little account of the socioeconomic problems and claims that balanced economic development is sought by promoting social justice. This principle, however, is more important in the NEPAD initiative, which is expected to be adopted as an AU development plan.

In addition to its complex architectural structure and ambitious objectives, the UA differs from the OAU by assigning a prominent role to civil society organizations and women in their affairs. For example, does the PSC have a provision that recognizes civil society organizations as key elements of the AU’s peace and security architecture, encouraging them to participate actively in efforts to promote peace, security and stability in Africa? It also encourages civil society organizations to work with the Commission to make the warning system work effectively. Civil society organizations have also been involved in the implementation of the AU’s agenda through organizations such as the ECOSOCC and mechanisms such as the APRM. This is important because the role of civil society organizations is included in the Constitutive Act to ensure that the AU differs from the OAU.

AU Attitude towards Gender Issue
The AU is more serious about gender equality, gender equality and mainstreaming than OAU and most Member States. The Constitutive Act’s preamble states that AU creation was governed by the need to strengthen the relationship between governments and all sectors of civil society, especially women, youth and the private sector, solidarity and cohesion among the African peoples. One of their principles (Article 4 1) is the promotion of gender equality. Article 3 has also been amended to ensure the effective participation of women in the decision-making process, especially in the political, economic and social spheres. However, the Constitution does not emphasize instruments such as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in Article 3 (e), and establishes a Special Committee on Gender.

However, gender equality and the importance of women are recognized in order to promote the AU’s goals in various articles of association and practice. For example, the Statute of the AU Commission states (Article 18 a) that the principle of gender equality is maintained in the recruitment of staff and that women constitute half of the original 10 commissioners (Article 6). 3 and 13). The Statute (Article 12 2) defines the Office of the President of the Commission and the gender mainstreaming, as this is a cross-section. PSC Protocol. Article 20 recognizes women’s role in promoting peace and security agenda AU and calls on women in NGOs to contribute to the operation of the PSC.

“However, more efforts need to be made to mainstream gender at all levels of the AU, including the Assembly. As Article 6(1) of the Consecutive Act states that those attending the Assembly sessions ought to be heads of state and government or their accredited representatives, the Assembly can easily facilitate more female participation in this supreme organ. Arrangements can be made for every session to have a certain number of females participating. By suggesting this, we do not imply that more women in the Assembly would lead to qualitatively different types of decisions.
Gender mainstreaming should not be based on assertions that women qualitatively receive different types of decisions. It’s basically about equality and representation. Our concern about the composition of the assembly is that it speaks logic of an organization that claims to be seriously concerned with gender mainstreaming to exclude women from the highest decision-making bodies.

Institutions of the African Union
To accomplish important government tasks, the AU works with eighteen institutions, but this section only examines what are being created to demonstrate how the Union deals with the challenge of governance in a globalized world. The seven bodies reviewed are the Assembly, the Executive Council, the PAP PAP, the African Human Rights Court, the ECOSOCC and the Commission. Each institution is discussed in terms of meeting its objectives and complying with the principles set out in the Constitutional Act. An attempt has also been made to see if these institutions have the potential to offer broader leadership on the continent.

VII.1. The Assembly
It is the highest institution of the AU, which includes heads of state and government or their representatives. Some of them were democratically elected, but others are not, but theoretically they still have the same level of authority. In this sense, the AU Assembly is similar to the OAU. The chairman of the Assembly, elected by Heads of State and Government, plays a one-year term, which may be renewed under certain circumstances, as was the case of President Nigeria, Olusegon Obasanjo, who served from July 2004 to January 2006. This institution meets twice in year (in January and July) to make decisions by other agencies. It may, however, be convened during an extraordinary session at the request of a Member State and approved by at least two-thirds of its members. The assembly makes a decision by consensus: when this is not possible, it requires two-thirds of Member States. However, only a simple majority is needed for procedural matters.

Under the Constitutive Act, the Assembly has tremendous power. It defines AU rules, accepts new members, adopts the budget, appoints the President of the Commission and his/her deputy and other Commissioners and decides on intervention in other countries. The Assembly may make recommendations to the Executive Board on conflict management, war and other crises and the restoration of peace. This institution may become dictatorial.

Figure: The AU assembly Architecture
076835
figure 2.1 Organs of the African Union,
Although the Constitutive Act gives great strength to the Assembly, it does not provide the control of this authority, nor does it have any means to examine the suitability of its proceedings. The African Union was founded at a time when the African government demanded the participation of states and non-state actors in decision-making, but the Constitutive Act did not provide individuals, civil society organizations to directly support the assembly. In fact, the Assembly disagreed with the requirements of democracy, accountability and popular participation in 2007. According to Article 9 (2) of the Constitutive Act, however, “the Assembly may delegate any of its competences and functions to any Union body”. Through this delegation, some of the activities of the Assembly were dealt with by the authorities seeking consultations with specialists and civil society organizations.

The Assembly’s record for African crises and conflicts since its inception in 2002 has been mixed. The first test case was the political crisis in Madagascar during the 2002 summit in which he had to choose between Didier Ratsiraka, a head who refused to accept electoral defeat and Marc Ravalomanana, the former mayor of the capital who had claimed the electoral victory, and demanded recognition. The AI did not choose any and left the country of Madagascar empty for a year. Since then, the Assembly has taken into consideration and made many decisions during each meeting on how to address African problems, mainly conflicts. At each meeting, the Assembly receives reports on the implementation of previous Commission decision.

Rules of Procedure The Assembly determines how to make a decision: if issued: as a rule or directive, it will be binding on the Member State and all actions will be taken to ensure its implementation in 30 days. But if the decision is taken as a recommendation, the resolution or opinion will not be binding because the aim is “to guide and harmonize the views of member states. One of the gray areas in the Assembly’s regional decision-making process is related to making decisions about interference under Article 4 (j) and 4 (h) If the Assembly must decide on interference, it must be carried out in an extraordinary session, which requires the approval of two-thirds of the majority of Member States and 15-day notice. The meeting will only take place if at least 36 member countries respond to requests for extraordinary meetings.

However, it is clear that the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly went to extremes to determine, in accordance with Regulation 37, the process of sanctioning the constitutional changes of the government, but it was not silent how decisions would be taken in response to dangerous circumstances. Despite the failure of Zimbabwe’s internal government system, serious security deterioration, economic and social situation, the Assembly has not taken significant action. The Assembly’s first president in 2002 was South African President Thabo Mbeki, who was fully aware of the conditions in Zimbabwe, but even under his leadership, the Assembly did little to improve the situation.

It is the Assembly which has to deal with the option of exemption of member states of the Union that violate the principles of the AU. It also develops a reconciliation program for these countries, which must be carried out within a certain period. In addition to deportation, Member States that do not comply with Union decisions and policies may be subject to other penalties, such as refusal of transportation and communication of relations with other member states, and other measures of decisive political and economic nature. Although sanctions for violations of the aims and principles of AI are clearly established, their implementation will require not only the political will of the leaders, but also the cooperation of all member countries and the good intentions of the African people.

VII.2. The Executive Council
It consists of the Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by the Member States. It is similar to the OAU Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Management Board is filled with members of the Congregation who are appointed and responsible before the Meeting. It meets at least twice a year in regular sessions, but it can happen. Like the Assembly, the Executive Council makes a decision by consensus, if it is not possible, it will require two-thirds of its members. However, in terms of procedures, a simple majority is enough.

The Executive Council has the power to take decisions on issues such as trade, science and technology, transportation and communications, environmental protection, humanitarian activities, education, culture, food, water, energy and mineral resources. It is hoped that some of its powers and functions will be delegated to specialized technical committees. The Executive Council is also responsible for overseeing the implementation of the policies formulated by the Assembly. For example, the Executive Council does not have the power to decide on intervention in Member States, but once the Assembly has taken such a decision, the Executive Council should implement it.

Civil society organizations have the possibility to influence the Executive Council program through specialized technical committees for which the Council delegates part of its responsibilities. In fact, civil society organizations and expert panels played an important role in matters of security, science and technology. For example, the African high-level panel on Modern Biotechnology, co-chaired by Professor Calestous Jurna (from Kenya) from Harvard University and Dr. Ismail Serajeddin (from Egypt) from the Library of Alexandria, prepared the report “Freedom of Innovation”: Biotechnology for the development of Africa, which became the main topic of the African Union summit in January 2007.

VII.3 The Pan-Africa Parliament
The PAP, one of the main institutions of the AU, was inaugurated on 18 March 2004 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Its purpose is to act as a continental advisory body serving as a common platform for all African peoples and grassroots organizations to engage more in discussions and decisions on the issues and challenges affecting Africa. Based in Midrand, South Africa, the PAP is made up of five nominee legislators from each state that has ratified the founding law. At the beginning of 2007, there were 235 parliamentarians from the 47 states that ratified the law. Legislators are expected to work half-time in two 30-day sessions each year.

However, the PAP has only a function of advising and advising in relation to the other institutions of the UA. However, it is expected that it will eventually become a body with legislative powers and play a key role in the implementation of the objectives and principles enshrined in the founding law of the AU, the protection of human rights, the strengthening of popularization of democratic institutions and the promotion of good governance, as well as transparency, peace. , Security and stability in Africa. With limited powers and without substantial legislative and oversight powers to participate in key decisions at the AU on the organization’s budget, the PAP can not assume the supervisory role in the AU system. Limited powers to investigate, discuss and express all aspects, such as human rights, the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of peace, stability, good governance and the rule of law in Africa.

The PAP annual budget is a part of the AU regular budget and is prepared in accordance with the AU financial regulations and is approved by the Assembly while exercising its legislative powers. This means that the PAP can issue opinions and make recommendations for budget proposals submitted to the Assembly and can not prepare its own independent work plan according to its priorities. Given the role that is expected to promote AI goals, this is a miracle, as it is managed with a budget of $ 6.4 million in 2007.

Because the current AU structure is different from the European Union, PAP shares several features with the European Parliament. The PAP is the same as the deputies, namely five legislators (at least one of them is a woman) who are elected from each member country representing their national parliament. This means that PAP members are elected or appointed by their respective national parliaments or other advisory bodies of member states from their statutory provisions.
However, the composition of PPA creates certain difficulties and dilemmas. One of them is the adoption of the representation principle with the same number of legislators from each Member State, regardless of its population. Nigeria complains that despite a population of 120 million people, the same number of legislators in PAP has Sao Tome and Principe, which is home to 100,000 people. It seems to ensure fair and fair representation taking into account the population size of the Member States should be one of the issues that should be addressed.
PAP is also faced with practical challenges to ensure that different political views are represented in the continental legislature. When writing this dissertation, there are no general procedural rules used by the national parliaments upon the appointment of its legislators to the PAP. In fact, in most countries there is no clear adaptation of political power with ideological lines, but with ethnic and religious lines.
This protocol is also silent on how the PAP deals with other institutions, especially those responsible for promoting good governance, the rule of law, peace and security. However, the protocol as the establishment of the Council of Sectiridad and Peace and the African Court of Human and Community acknowledges the role of the PAP in promoting human rights and peace in Africa, respectively. Since its inception, PAP has been exposed to a number of challenges, which appear to be a general trend with the formation and operation of the AU structure. PAP, like other continent in the AU, was established despite the continent’s weak capacity and significant economic consequences of movements as at both national and continental levels. For example, the protocol determines that members of the PAP grant will be paid to cover the costs of carrying out their duties, but nothing about the sources of funding.

VII.4. Africa Human Rights Court
The idea of an African court of human rights goes back to 1961, when a meeting of African lawyers in Lagos, Nigeria, presented an example of this type. However, it was not until 1981 that the Nairobi Summit adopted the African Charter on Human Rights and Human Rights. It also created the African Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights (ACHPR). With limited advisory powers to interpret and promote the letter, to ensure compliance with the objectives and investigate the state reports. The main shortcomings of the Charter and the Commission are that they do not have measures and implementation mechanisms to promote and guarantee that the State respects the decisions of the Commission. The failure of the Commission was demonstrated in January 2006, when the Assembly of the adopted and approved the Charter in accordance with Article 59, the publication of the Report of the 19th African Commission on Human Rights and Human Rights and its annexes.

However, the weakness of ACHPR emerged in the 1990s, arousing strong feelings among experts and human rights activists that the protection of human rights in Africa requires stronger mechanisms. This led to the OAU summit in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, which adopted the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the establishment of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights in June 1998, the fifteenth ratification of the Comoros on January 25, 2005.

The Court, located in Arusha, Tanisania, is composed of 11 elected judges who elect the Executive Council and approved by the Assembly in January 2006. The judges serve six years and may have one year extension. The court has both judicial and advisory powers and met for the first time on 2 May 2006. It has competence in the interpretation and implementation of the Charter, the Protocol and other human rights instruments.

VII.5. The Peace and Security Council
Concerning peace establishment and security building, this is the main body of the AU, which is responsible for the responsibility or promotion of peace, security and stability. With regard to a means of promoting African collective security, the CCC consists of 15 equal members. A ten-year mandate of five years and five for a three-year term. Among the criteria for PSC membership is a country’s contribution to the promotion and maintenance of peace and security in Africa, and respect for constitutional governance and the rule of law amid human rights. The protocol that established the PSC was ratified in December 2003 and the first meeting of the PSC at ministerial-level took place in March 2004.
The tasks of the PSC include the promotion of peace, security and stability in Africa. Predicting conflicts and attaining preventive diplomacy: building peace through good services, mediation, mediation and research. The CPS can also support peace measures (Peace Support Operations – PSO) and carry out interventions under Article 4, j of the Charter to engage in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction and humanitarian operations and disaster management. It can not impose sanctions if government unconstitutional changes take place in a Member State, as opposed to the Algiers decision and the Lomé Declaration. The PSC is also mandated to promote and implement the Common African Defense and Security Policy. The Convention on the Prevention of and Fight against Terrorism and international conventions and treaties on arms control and disarmament. It may also take appropriate measures to defend the national independence and sovereignty of a Member State prone to assault, such as mercenaries or terrorist organizations.

VII.6. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council
The Economic, Social and Cultural Council, set up in Addis Ababa on 29 March 2005, aims to give African CSOs a role in decision-making and decision-making at AU level. It consists of 150 members, professional groups, NGOs, social groups, community organizations, workers, religious and cultural groups. It is an AU advisory body. In the opening speech of ECOSOCC, President of AUA Alpha Konare argued that this institution was created as an instrument against dictatorial regimes, hostile foreign interventions, and the negative effects of globalization.

ECOSOCC aimed at providing a solid ground for democracy, and the promotion of the rule of law and human rights, and good governance. The inclusion of ECOSOCC in the AU mechanism is of great imporECOSOCC aims to provide a solid foundation for democracy and the promotion of the rule of law and human rights as well as good governance. ECOSOCC’s participation in the AU mechanism is of particular importance in terms of giving an African civil society organization a role in the development of the continent and the popularity of participation as outlined in the 1990 Arusha Population Charter. This is a radical change in the vision of the UAE when civil society is considered an enemytance in the sense that it gave a role to the African CSO in the continent’s development, and popular participation stated in the 1990 Arusha Charter on Popular Participation. It represents a radical change of the OAU view when civil society was considered as an enemy.

The Economic and Social Council will also allow the African people to participate in AU programs and decisions, and will be extended to other AU bodies, the PPS Political and Security Committee, the African Human Rights Commission and special committees. However, ECOSOCC faces challenges that may affect its effectiveness. First, like other African Union institutions, it has no means and no set of rules to act. Secondly, many African governments still have a negative attitude towards civil society organizations. Thirdly, most African civil society organizations suffer from weak institutional capacity and can not control government governance, transparency and accountability.

VII.7. The AU Commission
The AU centralized power and decision in the Commission. An administrative structure that organizes the summits. It is the permanent secretariat of the union and its leading department. This differs from the United States Bureau because the President of the Commission supports the alternatives representing eleven subregions on the continent and eleven commissioners. At the 2007 Summit in Addis Ababa, it was decided to create three new posts for the commissioners.
Figure 2: AU Commission
933450-133350
VII.8.A. Structure of the African Union Commission
There is a general feeling among the Member States that the Commission wants to run the AU. As the Commission has provided PSC with secretarial support, its members address the invited participants. The Commission set a timetable for the PSC, proposed its agenda, prepared a draft report and prepared a communication, which was usually presented a few minutes before the meeting and was to be considered and adopted. The PSC also showed little commitment to technical issues related to the creation and analysis of facts. Ideally, the countries of the PSC must have full-time ambassadors in the Council during their term, not the current arrangements in which ambassadors serve at the same time the AU, the UN, Ethiopia and other countries in the region.

Due to the weaknesses of PSC members, the Commission plays a leading role in the implementation of the AU peace and security program, including the management of the resources allocated to its implementation. There were also cases where the Commission had taken a decision that PSC should have taken. For example, during the 50th session of the PSC, members believed that they were faced with the facts needed to send UA forces to eastern DRC to disarm the groups operating in the region without penalty. Although the Commission argued that the PSC Member States should have acted quickly in the face of the deteriorating security situation, the Commission considered that such an important operation requiring intense action had a clear mandate and should be carried out after consultation with the governments. On another occasion, the Commission did not ask South Africa to send additional soldiers to support the Comoros elections in April 2006 to the African Union mission.

The above indicates serious errors in the organizational structure. Ideally, the Commission should be the administrative arm of the Union, not the decision-making body. You should only implement decisions from other agencies. Serving as the guardian of UA documents and as the creator and interpreter of principles, procedures and rules, he gained unlimited and overwhelming power. Organizations like the PSC are also at the mercy of the Commission because they control the portfolio.

The Commission also has concerns about the preference of one department by donors, while others are virtually unnoticed. For example, the section on political issues, which also deals with issues of political stability, human rights and humanitarian aid, is usually ignored, even when it comes to humanitarian crises such as Darfur. The PSC protocol usually ignores this important section, although its work is important for the PSC function.

It is also clear that, in addition to the interests of donors, fighting for power is crucial for the creation of the organs, structures and mechanisms of the AU. Those who control political power and wallets seem to be starting from the beginning to the institutions. For example, firstly identifying the needs and priorities of Africa, the development of strategies to build them up created structures and assigned their tasks later. Although many structures and mechanisms are already set at home, they will not be developed until they are launched due to the launch of the most recent executable structure. This body is trying to go down and define its role in promoting development, stability and peace in Africa. It only shows how effective the human rights court is if it works. ECOSOCC must also be a forum for civil society organizations that has an impact on the African development program, but it must meet expectations.

To sum up, UA is a modern, ambitious like the European Union model that has evolved over the past four decades although the creation of the African Union was in 2002. “new organization, new ideals, new objectives, new leaders, and a new era for Africa, in the final analysis, it is the political will, money and a new mindset that will determine whether the AU succeeds or remains another African experiment.”
AU Relations with other Organizations and Initiatives
Although the African leaders tried to put their identities and interests in line with the new world order as the Constitutive Act states in (Article 3e) “encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations,” it is not clearly mentioned how state this colboration would work. However, Article 17 of the PSC Protocol affirms that
“in fulfillment of its mandate in the promotion and maintenance of peace, security and stability in Africa, the Peace and Security Council shall cooperate and work closely with the United Nations Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Furthermore, it states that the PSC “shall also cooperate and work closely with other relevant international organisations on issues of peace, security and stability in Africa.”
The Constitutive Act also recognizes the importance of the RECs to achieve the objectives and tasks of the African Union (Article 3 (1)) to coordinate policies between the existing RECs and the future. Coordination and harmonization were the main topics of discussions among Africans.
1. Towards Effective Regionalism
The efforts of Africa to reconcile and organize the African RECs began in 1976, when the OAU Council of Ministers called for the establishment of regional foundations of five regions: North, South, East, Central and West. The Lagos Plan of Action of 1980 and the 1999 Abuja Agreement (Article 6.2 (a)) require the strengthening of existing regional economic communities as a basis for the African integration. In 1987, the OAU Council invited the Secretary-General of the OAU, the Executive Directors of the ECA, and the African Development Bank to work with with ECOWAS and the other regional organisations to harmonize their strategies to achieve unity.
This, however, did not stop the The creation of uncontrolled renewable energy sources has led to serious inefficiencies, duplications, accidental coincidences and even increased efforts and scarce resources that need to be created.

IX.2. Proliferation of African RECs
The spread of RECs must be understood by the fact that African leaders saw the decade following the end of the cold war as a definite period for peace, security and development. First, the nature of the conflict has changed and has become regionalized. This has not only led to a reconceptualization of peace and security at the subregional level, but also to advanced subregional powers, particularly in South and West Africa, and prompted RECs to establish mechanisms to promote peace, security and stability. Secondly, during this time, the RECs realized that insecurity undermined development and regional integration initiatives. In other words, they found a strong correlation between security and development.

Figure: Regional Economic Communities
IX.3. Deepening Ralations with RECs
The process of deepening OAU/AU relations with RECs has been strongly followed since the 1990s, especially since African leaders have come to the conclusion that problems of continual conflict, underdevelopment, poverty and globalization can be better addressed with integration. As a result, the formation of ERCs was motivated by the belief that peace, security and stability were necessary conditions for implementing the agenda of development and integration. NEPAD architects also concluded that security, democracy and good governance, human rights and economic management are the prerequisites for sustainable development. Therefore, the task in question was to establish a close working relationship between the AU and RECs to promote peace, security, stability and development. The PSC protocol recognizes the importance of regional mechanisms as the core components of its architecture for peace and security as well as it has been prepared to develop labor relations and determine responsibilities between AU and RECs.

As part of ongoing efforts to deepen the relationship between OAU / AU and RECs, the OAU Summit in Lusaka in July 2001 adopted a resolution that reaffirms the status of RECs as building blocks of AU. The African leaders also stressed the need for close involvement of RECs in the formulation and implementation of all AU programs. The conference also urged the Secretary-General of the African Union to take steps to examine the implications of the relationship between AU and RECs to change the existing protocol between the African Economic Community (AEC) and RECs.

These decisions reflect the fact that several regional economic groups have developed their mechanisms for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts and the experience gained in the African Union in the application of the architecture of continental peace and security. For security in particular, the Economic Community of West African States has had experience in supporting peace in operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone and was developed to prevent, manage and resolve peace and security and rescue conflicts, such as defense mechanisms. Security Council, Mediation and Mediation, Council of Elders and Peace and Security Council. Early Warning and Alert System and ECOWAS Fire Watch Group.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has carried out, in Article 7 of the Charter, promoting the priorities of peace and stability. To achieve this goal, it established a mechanism to resolve disputes with both institutions, the Council of Heads of State and Government and the Council of Ministers. IGAD also put an early warning and conflict mechanism in 2002.

While the countries of Southern Africa have been working together in defense and security since 1970, when the leading countries to support the fight against liberalization, it was not until 1998 that politics, defense and security agencies were created in the SADC as a mechanism for prevention, management and conflict resolution.

It was not surprising, when the UA was launched, its founders were well aware that RECs already had a comparative advantage in adopting certain peace initiatives. In this sense, they emphasized the relationship between AU and RECs in the protocol that established the PSC. However, concerns remain that cooperation between the AU and the REF on peace and security issues has not been organized or coordinated. This underlines the need for clarity, coherence and structure of the AU and encourages cooperation on peace and security matters.

Since 2005, interest in streamlining the current REF has increased. For example, in October 2005, an advisory meeting was held for the central areas to the north and west of Accra, Ghana, a similar meeting for the East and South region took place in Lusaka in Zambia in March 2006, I chose this question, the PAP in May 2006 and the UAA summit in Banjul, July 2006. Among the proposals were the preservation of the current state, the adoption of a sectoral approach or the merger of the organization.

The success of the African Union will depend to a large extent on several factors. The first is to what extent its members are willing to unite their sovereignty in the interests of the continent. Only on one side of Africa can issues of common interest, such as debt, unfair conditions for international trade, environmental problems and the HIV / AIDS pandemic.

Secondly, the integration process must be guided by inspiring, coherent and political leadership that is fully confronting the unification of Africa. Libya, South Africa and Nigeria have provided initial leadership, but should be expanded to include other countries of the future.
Third, AU needs goodwill and support for Africans. The Union will continue to be questioned in terms of democracy, accountability and transparency if some of its members continue to receive low ratings in terms of good governance. So far, governments have been running the AU, but the Union has been expanding its interaction with Africans, regularly.

Fourth, the AU must ensure that it has sufficient funds to create institutions and support activities. Five of the 42 poorest countries in the world are in Africa. Due to the weak financial base, UA relied heavily on donors to implement its programs and projects. This, in turn, revealed the organization to the donor agenda, which in some cases differed from Africa. Support for the AU, like the Darfur mission, was also the most welcome, but it also raised some concerns about the Union’s dependence on external support.

Finally, the AU must act quickly to adopt and implement a common continental policy. A good policy alone does not matter if there are no competent people to implement it. In the end, the mandate of the UA as a new organization with new ideals, objectives and leaders will be determined by a strong political will, the availability of money and a new way of thinking. That is what rebuilds your identity and interests.

Chapter Three
African Union Strategy for Democracy, Development, and Peace

One of the key factors in founding the AU was the recognition of its founders in improving democratic structures and promoting good governance. They felt that these issues, like others, such as constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law, are crucial to security and development. The basic laws of Ukraine have adopted these ideals as some of their goals and principles in addition to popular participation, gender equality and social justice.

By this time, the AU was in the process of adopting the Charter for Democracy, Elections and Governance (hereinafter the “Charter for Democracy”). The main objectives and principles of the Charter are the elements of democracy in the Constitution. The Charter of Democracy also seeks to eradicate corruption, incorporate a culture of peace and create a favorable climate for democratic consolidation, including opposition parties. It also seeks to promote the separation of powers and controls and balances, representative government through free and fair elections and civil control over the security sector (Article 3).

Achieving these goals requires collaboration with various actors, AU, RECs, African states, civil society organizations and the donors. In theory, this is a normative leap from the state-centered nature of OAU to people-centered processes and activities. If successful, this can be a transition from a culture of impunity to a responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations.

However, the essential goal is to make the decision makers and the people involved in the decision-making process. Given the various factors, the current situation requires a significant change. African countries have different political and legal systems, lack of awareness of the local population of the AU and the fact that some African rulers still believe that they are not responsible to the people they govern.
This chapter discusses, in its first section, the parameters, framework, and measures that should be available to reach good governance and the rule of law. Whereas, the second section explores security and peace building in Africa, and it contains a case study about Darfur crises.
Section I: Towards Good Governance, and the Rule of Law
As above mentioned, governance is exercised at different levels of social activity. The African Commission on Global Governance has stated that governance is “a continuing process through which conflicting and diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken.” Regarding this perspective, good governance would be reflected in different institutions, and structures, to manage their affairs. It has also been used to describe formal and informal sets of arrangements. For example, Goran Flyden defined governance as “the conscious management of regime structures with a view to enhancing the legitimacy of the Public realm.”
Moreover, it implies the involvement of the different components of civil society in the management of mega-policy issues such as the environment, security. Consequently, development cannot be left to governments alone. Thus, local associations, organizations, ethnic networks, and other NGOs may be involved in decision-making processes.

Government decisions gain ligitimacy, partly from civil society policy. Therefore, management works with local, national and international networks. Therefore, this system is very important or useful because it involves institutional development.

I.1. Good Governane
It is possible to distinguish three different forms of government: poor governance, corporate governance, and good governance. The term good governance has been used since the 1980s by the IBRD and the IMF to designate certain types of political and economic orders imposed by the neoliberal ideology. In 1999, it was included in their definition that it requires state transparency and accountability, increasing public participation in the policy-making process to build democratic structures. Hence, the IBRD and the IMF, state that good governance is tightly linked with the spread of liberal democracy.

However, the version of good government introduced by the IBRD and the IMF has undesirable characteristics that caused significant suffering to Africans. This type of good management involves serious ethical questions. For example, is it morally possible for African politicians to offer grains for export to receive foreign currency, a priority over food crops (for consumption)? Is it a good debt for poor African countries to spend most of their income on paying off debt? Why do the new generations in Africa pay large debts that can be attributed to the African leaders and the international financial institutions?
Only with the help of Knowledge and democracy enable the African people to give answers to such questions.

I.2. Consent and Majority Rule
It simply refers to the fact that the power of government comes from the people, and that is the only source of explanation and justification. “Popular participation” must be implemented through free elections. Voters should not be required to make a specific decision about the procedures that govern the process within their community. Although the majority rule can be defined as a decision made after more than half of the electorate has been taken. On the other hand, the rights of minorities must be protected. Therefore, it is not surprising that most can be developed as a second simple alternative, a necessary alternative to the excellent lack of agreement in all orders. The unanimous claim would be to grant everyone the right to veto the decision and make it virtually impossible to make decisions in large groups. This practical justification for the unanimous replacement of the majority as a discrete method of decision-making is common in modern political thought.

Universal suffrage is specifically recognized by the Charter of Democracy (Article 4 (2)) as “the absolute right of the people”. This chapter is used to refer to conditions that most Africans need to express their views, to participate in policies and decisions that govern them. Pay attention to legality, equality before the law, and access to correct information through free and honest means of communication. The conditions under which free elections are held are set out in Chapter 7 of the Democratic Charter, with particular attention to the AU Declaration on the principles of democratic elections in Africa.