Protecting Civilians in Africa: The Risks of Issue-Linkage between RtoP and Peacekeeping

Abstract

The issue of civilian protection by international actors has gone through significant evolutions over the last decade, with a particular resonance in the African context. First, civilian protection by peacekeepers has become increasingly mainstreamed both in policy documents and in African peacekeeping operations’ mandates. In parallel, civilian protection lies at the core of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) adopted by the 2005 UN World Summit. This parallel conceptual development has led to a rapprochement between the two emerging norms. Issue-linkage between RtoP and civilian protection in peacekeeping operations has been observed in the broad policy development, while peacekeeping operations in Darfur and Côte d’Ivoire in particular have provided examples of such a rapprochement. Drawing on developments on the African continent, this article argues that issue-linkage between RtoP and civilian protection in peacekeeping is counterproductive. First, RtoP is characterized by its exceptional nature and narrow agenda – in relation to the four threshold crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing – while the civilian protection in peacekeeping agenda is broad-ranging. Second, the two concepts imply different degrees of use of force that should justify a conceptual caesura. Third, both RtoP and civilian protection in peacekeeping are emerging norms that are resisted because of a suspicion of norm-makers’ political agendas. The contentious nature of the two concepts, in particular the coercive dimension of RtoP, is such that issue-linkage is likely to exacerbate norms’ resistance rather than provide a mutually reinforcing environment.