Submission Deadline-30th April 2024
April 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Special Issue of Education: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume VI, Issue VII, July 2022 | ISSN 2454–6186

A Legal Comparison of Regional Powers’ Involvements in African Conflicts: Case Studies of Libya and South Africa

Habiba Yaouba
Zhongnan University of Economics and Law

IJRISS Call for paper

Abstract: The Republic of Chad, located in central Africa, is under attack by a series of military coups; despite its prosperity, the country has emerged from protracted conflicts since its independence. The violence was perpetrated and directed by rebel groups of various ethnicities. As the regional leader, Libya decided in 1991 to intervene in internal Chadian affairs by mediating between the regime and rebel groups on political and economic matters, despite being under international sanctions. The first “Coup d’État” since Ivory Coast’s independence occurred in December 1999, and more recent coups have also been successful; the violence in Ivory Coast appears to be a conflict that has targeted both the military and civilians. The last military coup in 2002 failed and turned into a small war within the country, attracting South Africa’s involvement in the bloodied country by violence, fear, and escalating instability, which worsened the human rights situation. The Ivory Coast’s struggle was more intensely influenced by economic factors, while the conflict in Chad was the political cause. Legally, the international community arrangement in Ivory Coast obligated South Africa, as a regional leader, to secure peace and stability. In contrast, Libya illegally meddles in the internal affairs of Chad with its influential “brother leader,” who has a new position as a regional peacemaker and is dominant in the Sub-Saharan region.

I.INTRODUCTION

In the past, the principle of non-interference in sovereign states’ internal affairs defined that sovereign states are allowed to manage conflicts within their boundaries, free of outside involvement. At the same time, big powers acting in their interests occasionally breach the norm. This position has changed recently, with the advent of universal principles imposing the duty for international security and standard criteria on states. New conditions emerge when norms such as democracy and human rights rise and compete with firms that exploit their citizens.
Article 33 of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter concerning the obligations of the pacific settlement of disputes states that for the preservation of international peace and global security, the parties to any conflict should try to find a solution through mediation and judicial settlement, as well as resort to agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful resources. Article 39 of Chapter VII, regarding action concerning threats to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression, states that the United States Security Council shall recommend or decide what measures shall be taken following