The role of the OAU’s Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution in the settlement of disputes and conflicts
Authors: Ulyganets Viktoriia Yevgenivna 
Published: January 2025

The article, through the prism of the post-colonial situation with international and intra-state inter-ethnic disputes and conflicts on the African continent, examines the process of formation and development of the African security system through the creation of a quasi-judicial body — the OAU’s Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution.

On the basis of the analysis of the declarations and decisions of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, as well as the Council of Ministers, a retrospective analysis has been made of the events and prerequisites in which the conceptual vision of the Founding Fathers for the creation of a new quasi-judicial institution and its goals was formed.

A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Declaration of the Assembly on the establishment within the framework of the OAU of the MCPMR is carried out, in particular regarding its structure, jurisdiction, tools for influencing a dispute or conflict depending on the stage (aggravation, escalation or de-escalation), the powers of the Secretary General, financing of the Mechanism and its activities, interaction with the United Nations, etc.).

The article analyzes trends, based on a comparative analysis of the Mechanism with the quasi-judicial institution that preceded it — the Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration. The trends observed during the creation of the Mechanism testify to the understanding and consideration by the Founding Fathers of those mistakes that were laid during the creation of the Commission and made the latter «stillborn».

Such characteristic features, which, as already noted, differed from the CMCA and were typical for this period of the formation of the African international judicial system, of course within the framework of the OAU, include the following: strengthening the role of the Secretary General by expanding his powers; the emphasis was placed precisely on the prevention of disputes and conflicts and taking all possible measures to prevent aggravation or escalation of both disputes and conflicts; strengthening and expanding cooperation with the UN in order to ensure peace; development of cooperation with subregional international organizations.

Finally, a significant part of the article is devoted to the problematic aspects of the MKPRM, which, we believe, caused the ineffectiveness of the Mechanism.

In our opinion, the following reasons can be attributed to such reasons: the toolkit was based on «soft law», the officials were not appointed, and the bodies were formed from appointed or elected employees, but consisted of officials and relevant central bodies of the OAU itself, which made this institution a completely political institution that based its activities on geopolitical interests rather than on the sources of international law, the representatives of the Mechanism acted on the basis of their two primary mandates — as heads of states, governments or other duly authorized persons or as officials directly in the OAU.

Thus, the Mechanism lost its meaning, because no one actually carried out activities on its behalf. In continuation of this, another problem arises — the lack of sufficient time for heads of state and government, the Secretary General of the OAU, etc., to properly exercise the powers of the representative of the Mechanism.

We should not forget about the underfunding of the Mechanism, which often manifested itself extremely negatively during conflicts at the stage of escalation, when it was necessary to send a peacekeeping contingent or other peacekeeping missions.

Key words: Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, Organization of African Unity, international court