Africa's Evolving Security Architecture and the Concept of Multilayered Security Communities

Abstract

Following decades of feeble attempts, Africa's states have recently made great strides in establishing an elaborate security architecture to tackle the continent's many perils. I argue that the emergence and particular structure of this architecture and its institutional layers are best described by the constructivist concept of multilayered security communities. While this concept is based on the original idea of security communities by Karl Deutsch and its later adaptation by Emmanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, it recognizes the increasing prominence of elaborate multi-level security cooperation in the developing world and the difficulties of the original theoretical framework to account therefor. Consequently, it combines security community terminology with notions such as organized complementarity and multi-level governance to do conceptual justice to systems like Africa's decentralized collective security arrangement.

Regional security institutions and weak states: The case of post-conflict Somalia and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)

“…While the effort to construct a continent-wide security architecture in Africa has origins in the colonial period, the first major step toward the establishment of a collective regional security organization in independent Africa was the creation of the Organization of the African Unity (OAU) in 1963 (Franke 2008). The founding of the OAU served as a compromise between two groups of African leaders, one calling for an immediate centralization of military power, and the second group, which called for a more gradual approach (ibid).…”

“…Thus, the phasing out of the Cold War security architecture, and the ensuing unmediated domestic violence experienced by member states inspired a growing acknowledgment among African leaders that they needed to overcome the challenges that plagued previous attempts to foster inter-African security cooperation. While increased political and economic cooperative efforts among African states occurred in the early 1990s, Benedikt Franke argues that the tragedies that unfolded in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo during this period highlighted the consequence of regional disunity, and helped spark a movement of reform (Franke 2008). Many leaders now seemed ready to engage in contingent compromises and to make the strategic choice, at this critical moment, to commit to the idea of sub-regional security institutions.…”

“…A significant outcome of this renewed debate over closer inter-African security cooperation occurred in July 2002, when the 53 African heads of state voted for the replacement of the moribund OAU with the African Union (AU) (Franke 2008). Unlike the ineffective OAU, in the AU, the sovereignty of member states remains inviolable so long as they are able to protect their citizens (Møller 2009).…”

“…However, if a member state violates the promise to fulfill this obligation, the AU has the authority to intervene within that state based on the decision of the AU Assembly, with a two-thirds majority. 2 As a further indication of the commitment to pursue closer security cooperation, the AU consists of institutional bodies specifically devoted to dealing with armed conflict and security issues, such as the Peace and Security Council, the Continental Early Warning System, and the African Standby Force (Franke 2008). Since its inception, the AU has engaged in peace-keeping missions in Burundi, Sudan, and Somalia, with some member states contributing troops.…”

Security Communities and the Unthinkabilities of War

“…This approach has had several empirical offshoots, especially the debate over its application in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) context (e.g., Acharya 2001, Khoo 2004, Peou 2005, Collins 2007). It also has been applied in the contexts of the League of Arab States (e.g., Dakhlallah 2012), Africa (e.g., Franke 2008), and North America (e.g., Massie 2007). Theoretical innovations consistent with the Adler & Barnett approach include knowing when a security community can be considered mature (Vayrynen 2000), the relationship between domestic stability and the security community (Hammerstad 2005, Nathan 2006, and the relationship between conflict-resolution practices inside security communities and how they treat outsiders (Bellamy 2004).…”