Ngoma Loic
Abstrart: Through this article, the author wants to bring legal arguments to oppose the criticisms which are currently directed against the authorities of the Sahel zone, in this case the Malian, niger and Burkinabé authorities following their attitude of rejection towards foreign partners. The author thus puts forward not only the argument of the legitimacy of their attitude in that it meets a specific need but also their legal character, in particular in that it does not violate any convention, quite the contrary is encouraged by the united nations charter.
Keywords: Sahel zone, Foreign partners, rejection, legitimacy of attitude, légalité of attitude, united nation charter.
The sahel region is this part of the African continent stretching from the horn of africa to the other end in the west. It encompasses a dozen countries namely: Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Gambia, Sudan. Sometimes Eritrea, Dibouti and Somalia are added. This region is facing for several year now many security challenges and especially terrorism. The main terrorist groups operating in this region include Boko Haram in the Lake Chad Basin, Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Daesh still known as the Islamic State, in the Greater Sahara. According to data from the Center for Strategic Studies for Africa, 70% of the violence of Islamist terrorists are grouped in few zones between Burkina Faso and Mali, with Mali alone concentrating more than 30% of the rate of violence. It is the reason why our attention in this work will be focus only on those two region namely Malli and burkina Faso.
To overcome this problem, many measures have been taken in those region, the most important of which are the deployment of peace and security missions. namely: the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), the G5 SAHEL task force, the Barkhane operation initiated by France and the Task Force Takuba led by the European Union;
After years in the field and mixed results, Mali and Burkina Faso have opted to break relations with all those peacekeeping missions. In this regard, we note several episodes of rupture:
- The injunction of departure by the Malian authorities follow by the effective departure of French forces from Operation Barkhane in Mali in August 2022 after the breakdown of defense agreements a few months earlier.
- The denunciation of the agreement on the presence of French forces on Burkinabe territory as part of Operation Saber follow by their departure 1 month later;
-The decision from the Malian authorities to suspend their participation in the G5 Sahel agreement but followed by a resumption of partnership;
-The unilateral decision from European countries to end of the European Union task force known as Takuba, following the Russian presence in the Sahel.
- The request for the immediate departure of MINUSMA forces from Mali June 16 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mali at the chair of the security council.
- A complain address by Mali again the MINUSMA
In each of these situations, the Heads of state of Burkina Faso and Mali have been the object of strong criticism, undermining their diplomatic relationship with many countries. The criticism was all the greater as the detachment took place in parallel with a rapprochement with Russia. However, far from geostrategic positioning and political choices, the real question is whether this attitude of the Sahelian authorities is legitimate and legal.
With regard to the question of legitimacy, this criterion would require that the measures taken by the various States be reasonably justified. In the Capstone doctrine, it is specified that operations must meet certain criteria of success so that the host State can retain it. One of those criteria is efficiency which mean a good result of the troops on the field. if a peace operation does not meet these success criteria and is rejected, such rejection will be considered legitimate. This was then the case for the missions that came to the aid in the Sahel. Indeed, in addition to not having been able to eliminate the terrorist threat, these have also been illustrated by conflicts with the populations and the local armed forces and accusations of sexual abuse. In such situation, calls for their departure are therefore justified.
Regarding legality, we will try to assess whether the attitude of rejection violates certain legal standards, among others:
-The principles of peacekeeping contained in the 2008 Capstone doctrine
-The general principles of termination of a convention contained in the Vienna Convention on Treaties of 1966
- The convention on the status of the forces of the various missions (SOFA).
- The right to establish general security arrangements with any person contained in the United Nations Charter of 1945;
With regard to the principles of the Capstone doctrine, in particular the principle of consent, which stipulates that a peacekeeping mission cannot be deployed without the agreement of the parties to the conflict. In the context of an internal conflict, only the consent of the host State is required; and that consent can be withdrawn if the conditions for its existence no longer exist. The rejection attitude of the authorities of the Sahel region is therefore legal according to the capstone doctrine because the condition of maintaining consent no longer existed.
With regard to the rules for termination of Conventions contained in the Vienna Convention, its article 54 paragraph (a) provides that "The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place: … a) In accordance with the provisions of the treaty...". This article is applicable when the agreement contains clauses relating to the termination. which leads us to examine the content of these conventions.
whether it concerns defense agreements between France, européan courntries and Mali and between france and Burkina Faso; whether it concerns the agreement on the status of MINUSMA soldiers, whether it concern the agreement for the creation of the G5 Sahel, the rules on denunciation and termination have been respected. Because if this had not been the case, there would have been no execution on the part of the States to which the injunction to leave had been given.
Now assessed to the united nations charter, article 51 paragraph 1 of the charter liberalizes the arrangements for collective security purposes and in the vision of the United Nations in these terms "Nothing in this Charter shall preclude the existence of regional agreements or bodies intended to settle matters which, affecting the maintenance of international peace and security, lend themselves to action of a regional character, provided that such agreements or bodies and their activities are compatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. " and to continue in paragraph 3 "The Security Council encourages the development of the peaceful settlement of local disputes by means of these regional agreements or bodies, either on the initiative of the States concerned, or on referral of the Security Council. ".
It therefore appears in the light of international law that the steps of the political authorities of the Sahel, in particular the Malian and Burkinabe authorities, are not illegal even less illegitimate and should therefore no longer be criticized.
Having reached the end of our work in which it was a question of analyzing the attitude of the States of the Sahel, we have come to the conclusion that this does not infringe international law and that, on the contrary, with regard to conflicts at the level of the Security Council constitutes an approach serving the interests of these countries. The situation that has just been analyzed is not unique on the continent; it can be observed in the Central African Republic where the authorities, to the detriment of the UN peacekeeping missions, have opted for Russian support, in Niger where soldiers took power and demanded the departure of foreign armies stationed in their country, or again in Congo where the president called for the departure of the United Nations PKO stationed in his country, MONUSCO. The conclusion drawn for the Sahel States can thus be extended to the latter.
Références
- Charter of the United Nations
-Convention establishing the G5 saleh (19/12/2014), Nouakchott
-Vienna Convention on Treaties of 1969
-Capstone Doctrine 2008
- Alain pierre loic Mboh Ngoma (15/08/2022) bishenko journal, the capstone doctrine as a solution to the problem of the extended mandate. Blichenko reading.
-AFRICAN SECURITY BULLETIN A PUBLICATION FROM THE CENTRE DES STRATEGIQUES DE L AFRIQUE 1N O . 3 / A P R I L 2 0 1 0
- Madeleine Odzolo-Modo () Peace operations led by African regional organizations https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03155274/document
- Https://press.un.org/en/2022/cs15160.doc.htm
- INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (09/12/1999), United Nations.
- Decree No. 90-1075 of 28 November 1990 publishing the technical military cooperation agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Republic of Mali signed in Bamako on 6 May 1985 (together an exchange of letters dated of 8 and 28 July 1986) (1)
