![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The customary international law on genocide established at the 1948 Genocide Convention suggests that neighbouring countries that watch genocide take place in another state and fail to take steps to stop it can also be prosecuted for allowing the massacre of people. Although this provision was not accorded a binding force, it reveals that genocide occurs within a wider political context in which states can take action to stop it or not. When the Rwandan genocide took place in 1994 the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was the supreme African body made up of more than 50 states. However, the OAU did not mobilise its members to send troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. This raises questions about the legality of the OAU then, and the inefficacy of its legal mechanism or instrument with which the Organisation could have used to enforce its decisions. The aim of this article is to critically investigate whether or not the OAU legal mechanism was best suited to help the OAU intervene in the Rwandan genocide. The article poses serious questions about the legal mechanism or instrument that the African Union (AU), which succeeded the OAU, has created to enforce its decisions especially in war-zone contexts. The article then ends by suggesting proposals and recommendations that the AU can adopt to strengthen its legal mechanism or create a new legal instrument that can be enforced by the African Court of Justice and the Peace and Security Council of the AU in anticipation of potential genocide occurring in other African states, other than that of Darfur in Sudan.