The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine and African State Practice: An Empirical Analysis of ECOWAS and AU Interventions

This study empirically analyses the application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine in African state practice, focusing on ECOWAS and African Union interventions in Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and The Gambia between 2019 and 2024. R2P remains contested in African international legal discourse, with debates about its selective application, consistency with sovereignty norms, and relationship to anti-colonial self-determination principles. Drawing on a mixed-methods methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis with comparative case study review, this research examines the normative frameworks invoked by ECOWAS and AU in authorising or debating intervention, and tests whether a coherent legal standard for R2P application can be identified in African regional practice. The study critically interrogates the gap between the political invocation of R2P language and the legal requirements for its legitimate exercise under international law, including Security Council authorisation and threshold requirements. It also examines the ECOWAS Conflict Prevention Framework and the AU's Constitutive Act provision on non-indifference as indigenous African legal alternatives to R2P. Findings indicate that African regional practice reflects an evolving but inconsistently applied normative framework that partially incorporates R2P principles while retaining strong sovereignty instincts, particularly in responses to unconstitutional changes of government. The study contributes original analysis of the relationship between R2P and the African peace and security architecture. Recommendations include greater normative clarification of R2P thresholds in African Union legal instruments. Keywords: R2P, ECOWAS, African Union, intervention, sovereignty.