Change in Motion: Evolution between Layering and Conversion

The African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) is the umbrella term for the key African Union (AU) mechanisms for promoting peace, security and stability on the continent. More specifically, it is “an operational structure for the effective implementation of the decisions taken in the areas of conflict prevention, peace-making, peace support operations and intervention, as well as peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction”. APSA is envisioned as a means by which Africa can take a greater role in managing peace and security on the continent, with the objective of offering “African solutions to African problems”. This study critically explores the extent to which APSA (such as the African Standby Force (ASF) and Panel of the Wise (PoW) have been successful in achieving their institutional objectives, as well as the degree to which they are able to contribute to the work of the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC). The findings of the study reveal that the African Standby Force's potential as a tool for the maintenance of peace and security on the continent depends on the political consensus (political buy-in) and predictable sources of financing. Vis-? -vis the Panel of the Wise, the study has discovered that the role of the Panel has been undermined by geo-political dynamics, limited mandate, membership size and its institutional design.

In assessing change through a New Institutionalist lens, changes within an institution often require the inclusion of new structures. Certainly, in assessing security as a potential change, the inclusion of new structures, which are able to support new capabilities and processes, is worth examination. The most important of these new structures for EU-AU security cooperation is, of course, the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). This chapter provides an overview of development of regional capabilities for governing security leading to the creation of the APSA. Unlike other assessments of the APSA, however, this chapter also seeks to highlight the role of key external actors: the United States, China and the EU. Moreover, it evaluates the consolidation of regional capabilities, including the global and regional legal instruments that account for the development of regional security institutions.

This article examines how the African Union (AU) has handled Africa's peace and security challenges since 2002, defines what has been successful and what remains aspirational. It does so by examining how the AU has responded, from using sanctions against coups, to deploying peacekeeping missions and mediating in conflicts. An African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) has developed since 2002, including a Peace and Security Council, an African Standby Force, a Continental Early Warning System and a Panel of the Wise. This sounds impressive, but the operationalization record is patchy: AU-deployed missions have been fully dependent on external donors; harmonization is a major problem; serious questions remain over AU capacity; and some of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are developing at a quicker pace than the AU. Given these circumstances and its internal capacity deficit, the AU will likely struggle to exercise oversight of regional processes, including the development of regional standby force arrangements. APSA is clearly based on a liberal peace model, yet democratic systems, respect for human rights and good governance aren't always in place in African countries, and the self-interest of elites continues to be a constraint on APSA and its success. Over the last decade the AU has found a voice and, despite some setbacks, it has shown through AMISOM in Somalia that it is capable of conducting a successful peacemaking operation. Its biggest challenge is not making the decision to intervene or deploy forces, but the capacity of most African states to deploy effectively. APSA's dependence on external partners needs to diminish over the next decade if better African solutions are to be found to peace and security challenges in the continent. Yet, the internationalized nature of crises such as the one in Mali in 2012–13 requires international partnerships. Not all of Africa's security problems can be solved by Africa alone, but APSA does provide a vision framework for African and external partnership.

The last two decades have seen African countries adopt a new security approach through the activities of regional economic communities (RECs) and the African Union’s (AU) African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). This article argues that despite progress in conflict prevention and the promotion of peace, defence and security through the APSA and RECs, challenges do remain. In particular, factors such as financial costs involved, the inadequate funds available for peace and security missions, conflicting interests and lack of agreement, poor co- ordination and inadequate human and logistics capacity have constrained the ability of African countries to achieve their peace and security agenda. Thus, for peace and security efforts being undertaken by the AU and RECs to be effective, the actors involved should have not only the requisite capacity but also political will and commitment, and cooperation among members and with the international community should remain crucial to the process.

The Memorandum of Understanding between the African Union (AU) and the Regional Economic Communities (REC) and Regional Mechanisms (RM) signed in 2008 identifies subsidiarity as an ordering principle of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). This was the first reference to the subsidiarity principle within the African context in a process of diffusion from the European context. Through process tracing and an analysis of hard and soft law documents of APSA this paper identifies that imitation was the mechanism of diffusion in 2008 in a process led by African agency and with Europe as a normative power. This result contributes to an investigation into the challenges that the APSA faces into becoming fully operational.

This study explores the African Union's (AU) response to escalating security challenges, including military coups and regional instabilities, through a posthumanist lens that interrogates the interplay of technology, humanity, and governance within the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). By examining APSA’s frameworks, the research highlights how emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and hybrid threat systems, reshape conflict dynamics and demand new ethical governance models. A mixed-methods approach integrates qualitative analysis of AU documents and secondary data from technologists with quantitative assessment of peace operation metrics, such as deployment efficiency and technological integration. . Key findings reveal systemic gaps in APSA, including funding shortages, delayed decision-making, and overreliance on external technological support, compounded by uneven regional capacities among Regional Economic Communities (RECs). The posthumanist perspective underscores the need to reframe African solutions by balancing technological advancements with human-centered ethical considerations, ensuring AI and digital systems enhance rather than destabilize security. The study advocates for adaptive governance frameworks that integrate RECs and prioritize local innovation to address hybrid threats. Implications point to a redefined technology-society nexus, where ethical AI deployment and regional collaboration strengthen APSA’s resilience. This research contributes to posthumanist discourse by situating African security within global debates on technology’s role in shaping future governance and stability.

This article presents survey data on the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). It focuses explicitly on two aspects: the internal constitution and achievements of the APSA; and coordination and cooperation with external actors, such as Regional Economic Communities, the United Nations and the European Union. The survey, conducted between October 2011 and December 2012, targeted 198 security experts in international organisations, think tanks, academia and non-governmental organisations. It reveals the APSA's current stage of development, achievements and challenges.

The buzzword ‘inclusion’ has taken peace research by storm and seeped into studies on the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and peace processes facilitated by African regional organisations. Apparently resonating with the normative preferences of donors and researchers, inclusion has taken root in policies on peace and security. However, the understandings of inclusion in peace processes remain diffuse in research and policy, and the research discourse seems far removed from the praxis of ‘peace deal-making’ in Africa. Therefore, this chapter turns the focus from APSA’s pillars to its peace processes and (self-)critically reflects on the concepts, methods and merits of researching inclusive peace-making. Focusing on policy discourses, actor groups and mechanisms for inclusion in peace processes, the chapter discusses the practice of civil society inclusion in peace-making in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and Southern African Development Community (SADC), focusing on the peace processes facilitated by the two organizations in South Sudan and Zimbabwe, respectively.

The author presents the tentative results of ongoing research into a new paradigm for peace and security in Africa. The empirical foundation of the research is the result of a triangulation of research methods that involved literature study, reflexive journaling and thematic analysis. The discussion aims to determine how China can contribute to the renewal of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). The aim is achieved by discussing and analysing the current APSA, including the challenges experienced, as well as the policy commitments and security activities of China in Africa. The research concludes that China is building a military intervention capacity to protect its interests in Africa. However, a new metaphor is needed that will bring solutions to the peace and security challenges of Africa. In this regard China can play an important role in assisting the APSA to focus on issues such as social transformation, capacity building for socio-economic development, and education aimed at peace and security.

This chapter critically explores how the African Union (AU) understands and interprets the global norms around gender and security found in the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. It shows how the WPS agenda is situated within the AU’s African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) while taking into account the local/regional gender regime including regional action plans (RAPs). To do so, the chapter maps out ways in which gender intersects with security when global and local norms interact within a regional security institution. Drawing on a selection of case studies, this chapter demonstrates that there is now a well-established network of frameworks that embed WPS on the continent. It concludes that this has been informed by a certain understanding of feminism and a new pan-Africanist push via the AU and women’s movements on the continent. Indeed, the chapter highlights the adoption of National Action Plans (NAPs) in seventeen member states as one of the primary achievements of the AU women’s movement. This chapter thus offers a unique perspective on the regional institutionalization process of the WPS agenda.

Since its establishment in 2002, the African Union (AU) has accorded particular importance to the establishment of a robust mechanism for effectively responding to conflicts in Africa. This emerging mechanism established under the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council (PSC Protocol) is known as the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). Central to the APSA is the PSC, which, like the UN Security Council, is ‘a standing decision-making organ for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts’. The PSC is vested with expansive powers covering the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in Africa. In this context, the PSC Protocol not only makes numerous direct references to human rights but it also assigns the PSC with specific responsibilities vis-a-vis the protection of human rights. Despite the PSC's express mandate with respect to human rights and the crucial importance and link of human rights to peace and security in Africa, little has however been written and discussed on the subject of human rights from the perspective of the works of the PSC and generally within the context of AU initiatives for the promotion, maintenance and restoration of peace and security in Africa. In an effort to contribute towards filling this lacuna, this article seeks to consider the place of human rights within the mandates of the PSC and the need for and the extent to which they are integrated into the PSC's work for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in Africa

This chapter examines the fundamental challenges of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) by studying its institutional structure, including the relationship with Regional Economic Communities (RECs). It reviews the obstacles faced by APSA to effectively achieve its goals as a regional framework comprising the Peace and Security Council, Panel of the Wise, Continental Early Warning System, African Standby Force (ASF) and Peace Fund. Thereafter it examines two AU-led peace operations, the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the AU Mission in Burundi (AMIB), to assess its effectiveness. The chapter focuses on the ASF as a mechanism to react and prevent the escalation of conflict situations in the region. Importantly, the authors critically analyse challenges related to the Westphalian nature of modern African States and highlight how pan-Africanism offers a way out of this impasse. Finally, the chapter argues that the ASF can catalyse regional integration.

An important trend in military doctrine for so-called 'peace support operations' has been to place them on a spectrum that includes coercion and enforcement. This paper focuses on British writers of doctrine as those responsible for driving the debate forward and forging a consensus among leading military powers. Their discourse is combat oriented, a fact reinforced by a trend towards strategic subcontracting to coalitions of the militarily willing and able. At the same time, there has been a move to institutionalise the involvement of military forces in relief, peace building and development activities. The overall emphasis is on stability and security to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief and to establish the conditions for peace-building processes. In the case of Bosnia, this involves conditionality and economic leverage. Although there is a long-established record of peace-keeping forces engaging in goodwill activities (with mixed results), the current trends contain contradictions that seem likely to contribute to the widely perceived erosion of classical humanitarian principles.

A Arquitetura de Paz e Segurança Africana (APSA) foi instituída pela União Africana (UA) em 2002 para manter as regras, normas, objetivos e princípios da UA sobre paz, segurança e estabilidade na África. A APSA também foi estabelecida para assegurar que o comportamento dos Estados membros da UA se moldasse a esses princípios e normas. A APSA deveria ser a estrutura operacional para a implementação efetiva de decisões tomadas sobre prevenção de conflitos, operações de paz, operações de apoio à paz, construção da paz e reconstrução pós-conflito. Seu mandato refletia a mudança para a segurança humana, que é amplamente aceita no nível continental. A APSA lidou com questões relacionadas ao desenvolvimento humano; promoção de práticas democráticas, boa governança e respeito aos direitos humanos, ação humanitária e gestão de desastres naturais. No quadro da teoria Neoinstitucionalista da integração, e com o uso de dados secundários, a hipótese deste trabalho é de que a APSA, como resultado de não aplicar de forma uniforme as suas regras para todos os Estados membros, vem tendo dificuldades na atuação em promoção da paz e segurança na África. O artigo, portanto, avalia o desempenho da APSA desde o seu início e apresenta uma visão geral dos principais componentes da APSA, seu arcabouço legal, bem como seus sucessos, perspectivas e desafios. O principal objetivo do artigo é verificar se a APSA fez alguma diferença na área de paz, segurança e estabilidade na África desde a sua criação. O trabalho constatou que, apesar dos grandes avanços feitos pela APSA em cumprir seu mandato para promover a paz, segurança e estabilidade na África, sua incapacidade de aplicar as regras, princípios, valores e normas da UA de maneira uniforme, para assim moldar o comportamento dos Estados membros, vem resultando em prejuízos para sua atuação. Para que a APSA lide eficazmente com os conflitos na África, recomenda-se que a UA desenvolva e mantenha um grande interesse nos recursos técnicos, humanos e financeiros da APSA para permitir que funcione da melhor forma possível. A União Africana é encorajada a permitir que as regras funcionem e que sejam aplicadas uniformemente aos estados membros. A UA deve também continuar a construir e reforçar as suas parcerias com organizações internacionais preocupadas com a paz e a estabilidade em África.

The Cold War in Asia and the Pacific was waged through an untidy set of bilateral relationships, but in the post‐Cold War period and in the absence of European‐style alliances this region has been left with few building blocks to reorient its security structures. This paper describes how in spite of this inauspicious environment, Canada and a number of other countries and regional organizations (Russia, South Korea, Mongolia, Australia, Japan, the United States, ASEAN) have made proposals — some more successful than others — and taken initiatives to improve the security architecture in Asia Pacific. The Canadian contribution to this search for increased regional stability was introduced in 1990 as the North Pacific Cooperative Security Dialogue. The focus of this proposal was not to transplant European models or institutions but to encourage the acceptance of a broader definition of security ‐ cooperative security — in regional dialogue.