THE ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN RESOLVING DISPUTES
In 1963, the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) was established as a regional organization of all African states. Its name and the year it was founded reveal a lot about it. The O.A.U. arose during the decolonization of Africa. The continent’s independent states were already numerous, but they were also poor, weak, and reliant on the former metropolitan countries in many ways. Africa’s leaders believed that the continent was still vulnerable to external pressure and aggression. They feared that a divided and weak Africa would be dominated by foreign powers in the future.
Africa’s independent states concluded that the continent’s unification was critical to the advancement of African peoples. Formal political independence would not, by itself, end foreign influence, nor would it ensure peace and prosperity for a vast and fragmented continent.
This point was hammered home in the three years following the Congo’s independence. Lumumba’s assassination, Katanga’s secession, and the intervention of mercenaries and foreign powers destroyed a nation and caused turmoil on the continent. Following the Congo debacle, African nations realized that unity was essential.
However, Africa’s leaders had very different visions of the future.
Of course, they were all influenced by the great Pan-African dream, but they disagreed on how to create a charter for African unity. Some leaders, including Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, and others, believed in a unified Africa with a continent-wide organization with broad powers. Other leaders, most of whom came from Francophone countries that remained somewhat dependent on France, were political “moderates.”
They desired a regional organization with clearly defined powers, but not one capable of challenging the status quo. 1
This division had a significant impact on the nature of the organization, which was founded on May 25, 1963 in Addis Abeba.
The Organization of African Unity Charter was the result of a compromise between moderates and radicals. The radicals and their allies were able to reach an agreement on an all-Africa organization. The moderates, on the other hand, were able to ensure that the new organization was given only limited powers under the Charter.
The founding member states’ common goals are outlined in the O.A.U. Charter. These goals are similar to those outlined in the United Nations Charter. The emphasis in the O.A.U. Charter, on the other hand, is on promoting “the unity and solidarity of the African States.” 2 The O.A.U. is also dedicated to ending “all forms of colonialism in Africa.” 3 Over the last two decades, this commitment has played a significant role in defining O.A.U. policies and priorities.
In contrast to the United Nations Charter, the O.A.U. Charter does not provide for collective measures to prevent or eliminate threats to international peace and security. It only states that members ” “hall co-ordinate and harmonize” their defense and security policies,” a goal that has proven elusive in practice.
The principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs of states, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state, peaceful settlement of disputes, emancipation of all dependent African territories, and non-alignment in foreign policy are all affirmed in the O.A.U. Charter. It also categorically condemns all forms of “political assassination” and “subversive activities.”
The institutions established by the O.A.U. to carry out articles II and III, on the other hand, are of a very different order than those established by the United Nations Charter. The Assembly of Heads of State and Government is the O.A.U.’s supreme organ. It meets once a year in general to “discuss matters of common concern to Africa.” ‘
7 The Council of Ministers established by Article XII is in charge of preparing Assembly meetings and carrying out its decisions. 8 A General Secretariat is in charge of providing services to both the Assembly and the Council. 9 The Assembly appoints its Administrative Secretary-General. 10
It is obvious that this structure has some flaws. The Assembly of Heads of State and Government is an awkward institution by definition. It cannot function indefinitely; its busy members can only devote a limited amount of time to O.A.U.
affairs, and members of the Assembly cannot function as a “security council” because they are neither directed to deal with disputes that may threaten the peace, nor empowered to take collective action binding on member states if such a threat is determined to exist.
Because the O.A.U. system lacks any other institutions with significant power, the organization as a whole has only a limited capacity to act in dispute resolution. It is neither designed nor structured to play the same kind of role in the field of peace and security as the United Nations.
THE ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN RESOLVING DISPUTES
Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic
INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT
- 1.Your Full name
- 2. Your Active Email Address
- 3. Your Phone Number
- 4. Amount Paid
- 5. Project Topic
- 6. Location you made payment from