Writing from Johannesburg, Hopewell Radebe presents a case for the Southern African Development Community threatening Robert Mugabe with the use of military force, in order to 'reduce the likelihood that [he] will proceed with the coup-by-stealth that appears to be under way'. Not for a moment do I think this is likely to happen. But there are some interesting elements in the case Radebe presents. He speaks of there being a legal right to launch military action in Zimbabwe:
Such action would be... in line with the African Union (AU) charter, which was amended in 2003 to permit military intervention in countries facing "a serious threat to legitimate order".That does raise the question which I've used to head the post. As Radebe goes on to say, the right of intervention in Zimbabwe would come 'not only from humanitarian concerns, but from Mugabe's illegal seizure of power'. And he cites some African precedents. But an illegal coup is not in itself the same as a humanitarian crisis (justifying humanitarian intervention); and nor is it authorization by the UN Security Council. From the same article:This move was also reinforced at subregional level in 2004, when the SADC Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security legalised intervention in cases of "a threat to the legitimate authority of the government (such as a military coup)".
"Legal government intervention" is an African innovation: an international law response to the cycle of coups and counter-coups that has plagued African states for decades. Both in treaties and in practice, African states have subtly shifted away from their traditional fixation on sovereignty, and begun to assert the right to intervene to prevent unconstitutional changes of government.So, is this subtle shift away from sovereignty recognized by international lawyers? If so, is it applicable outside Africa? It's the first time I've come across the idea of an African innovation in this matter. (Thanks: KS.)