A Curious Case of Hybrid Paternalism
Conceptualizing the Relationship Between the UN and AU on Peace and Security
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4977368 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tieku, Tieku Tieku (corresponding author), Hakak, Hakak Hakak |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 129 |
| Publication date | 2014-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | African Conflict and Peacebuilding Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2156-7263 • E-ISSN: 2156-695X |
| Publisher | Indiana University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2979/africonfpeacrevi.4.2.129 |
| OpenAlex | W2052450384 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 11 |
This article conceptualizes the working relationship between the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN). The depth of the AU-UN partnership is unparalleled in terms of the UN’s relations with other regional security institutions in the world and it even transcends the traditional classification of the UN’s relations with regional organizations (ROs). We suggest that the concept of hybrid paternalism, when disaggregated and used as a multidimensional analytical framework, provides an accurate and convincing description of the complex nature of the AU-UN relationship. The article identifies five different dimensions of hybrid paternalism, namely: legal paternalism, resource-based paternalism, political paternalism, normative paternalism, and ideational paternalism. When examined from the perspective of the five elements of hybrid paternalism, it becomes clear that the relationship between AU and the UN is inherently symbiotic and codepen-dent. Both institutions share Africa’s peacemaking burden and have each other to use as a scapegoat when peacemaking activities do not go according to plan. In addition, while the UN has a partner it can use to gain consent to intervene in all the states in Africa (except Morocco), the AU has a counterpart it can go to for financial, technical, logistical, and human resources assistance to fulfill its mandate. The codependent nature of the relationship opens up opportunities for each institution to influence decision-making processes and the organizational behavior of the other. To ensure nuanced, textured, and in-depth discussion, the article draws information primarily from the relationship between the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) to illustrate the argument
General partnership · Individualism · Institution · Law and economics · Normative · Paternalism · Political science · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Development and Aid · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security
From Paternalism to the Chambas Formula for Mediation
Unamid and the Legitimation of Global-Regional Peacekeeping Cooperation
Complementary or Conflictual? Legitimation Struggles in the African Union – United Nations Peacekeeping Partnership
The rise of companies in the cyber era and the pursuant shift in national security
Convenience or complementarity
African Responses to Covid-19
The African Union's evolving role in peace operations
The responsibility to protect, as enshrined in article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union
The United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur
Double Standards in Peacekeeping? Subcontracting Peacekeeping and International Humanitarian Law
Peacekeeping cooperation between the United Nations and regional organisations
Partnership peacekeeping
The African Union's New Security Agenda
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |