Abstract
This article offers a novel argument about regional sanctions as in-group peer review, drawing on an analogy from the world of academic publishing. Through their leaning on community-derived authority, equality before the peer, and constructive criticism, regional sanctions have a previously overlooked legitimacy advantage over out-group sanctions used by external actors. The article probes the empirical bearing of this argument for African Union (AU) sanctions against Egypt (2013) and Sudan (2019). Even in these contentious democratic crises, perceptions of sanctions in African media broadly support the theoretical intuition of regional sanctions as a form of peer review. It is, however, far from obvious that peer review leads to successful enforcement of democratic norms beyond urgent crisis. Pragmatic and resolution-oriented, AU sanctions aim at avoiding anarchy rather than at achieving flawless democracy.
Highlights
Since it replaced the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 2002, the African Union (AU) has become an unlikely forerunner among regional organisations (ROs) that use sanctions1 against member states
When the Peace and Security Council (PSC)’s first 15-day deadline approached, Egypt invited a group of African leaders to discuss the situation, resulting in a recommendation to extend the deadline to three months
A crucial, yet hitherto neglected, dividing line in international norm enforcement goes between the in-group sanctions of ROs and the out-group sanctions of the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), and individual states
Summary
Since it replaced the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 2002, the African Union (AU) has become an unlikely forerunner among regional organisations (ROs) that use sanctions1 against member states.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
